Seasonal variations of the semi-diurnal and diurnal tides in the MLT: multi-year MF radar observations from 2–70° N, modelled tides (GSWM, CMAM)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. In an earlier paper (Manson et al., 1999a) tidal data (1990–1997) from six Medium Frequency Radars (MFR) were compared with the Global Scale Wave Model (GSWM, original 1995 version). The radars are located between the equator and high northern latitudes: Christmas Island (2° N), Hawaii (22° N), Urbana (40° N), London (43° N), Saskatoon (52° N) and Tromsø (70° N). Common harmonic analysis was applied, to ensure consistency of amplitudes and phases in the 75–95 km height range. For the diurnal tide, seasonal agreements between observations and model were excellent while for the semi-diurnal tide the seasonal transitions between clear solstitial states were less well captured by the model. Here the data set is increased by the addition of two locations in the Pacific-North American sector: Yamagawa 31° N, and Wakkanai 45° N. The GSWM model has undergone two additional developments (1998, 2000) to include an improved gravity wave (GW) stress parameterization, background winds from UARS systems and monthly tidal forcing for better characterization of seasonal change. The other model, the Canadian Middle Atmosphere Model (CMAM) which is a General Circulation Model, provides internally generated forcing (due to ozone and water vapour) for the tides. The two GSWM versions show distinct differences, with the 2000 version being either closer to, or further away from, the observations than the original 1995 version. CMAM provides results dependent upon the GW parameterization scheme inserted, but one of the schemes provides very useful tides, especially for the semi-diurnal component.Key words. Meteorology and atmospheric dynamics (middle atmosphere dynamics; waves and tides)
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".