MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166959534 · doi:10.1109/igarss.2002.1025092

Some fundamental statistics associated with ocean surface current measurement using a dual station, long-range, high-frequency ground wave radar system

2003· article· en· W2166959534 on OpenAlexaffabout
K. Hickey, Eric W. Gill, J. Walsh

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicUnderwater Acoustics Research
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsRadarCurrent (fluid)Remote sensingRange (aeronautics)Current meterSubmarine pipelineField (mathematics)Ocean currentSurface waveWave radarGeologyRadar engineering detailsComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceTelecommunicationsRadar imagingEngineeringAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Raytheon Systems Canada Limited, in association with Northern Radar Inc (NRI), have designed and built two long-range High Frequency Ground Wave Radar (HFGWR) facilities at Cape Race and Cape Bonavista, NF, Canada. Even though these systems can routinely monitor offshore target activity, the data stream for target detection can also be used to generate surface currents. Since each station is capable of providing estimates of the radial components of the surface current field, the vector current field can be reconstructed from the radial data via geometric considerations. To explore this possibility, sample datasets from both stations were collected in June of 2000 and subjected to a dual station analysis scheme. The treatment presented here will discuss some of the statistics associated with the radial current data as well as the dual station technique used to generate the surface current field. Finally, the radar current estimates will be compared with current meter data collected near the Hibernia platform.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.189 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUnderwater Acoustics ResearchFrench-language works237,207