MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2180554877 · doi:10.1175/jtech1693.1

A Statistical Method for Correcting Salinity Observations from Autonomous Profiling Floats: An ARGO Perspective

2005· article· en· W2180554877 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fabien Durand, Gilles Reverdin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArgoGeostrophic windFloat (project management)MeteorologyTemperature salinity diagramsSatelliteComputer scienceGeodesyNeutral buoyancyRemote sensingEnvironmental scienceSalinityGeologyClimatologyMarine engineeringOceanographyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Profiling Autonomous Lagrangian Circulation Explorer (PALACE) float is used to implement the Array for Real-Time Geostrophic Oceanography (ARGO). This study presents a statistical approach to correct salinity measurement errors of an ARGO-type fleet of PALACE floats. The focus is on slowly evolving drifts (typically with time scales longer than a few weeks). Considered for this case study is an ensemble of about 80 floats in the Irminger and Labrador Seas, during the 1996–97 period. Two different algorithms were implemented and validated based on float-to-float data comparison at depth, where the water masses are relatively stable over the time scales of interest. The first algorithm is based upon objective analysis of the float data, while the second consists of a least squares adjustment of the data of the various floats. The authors’ method exhibits good skills to retrieve the proper hydrological structure of the case study area. It significantly improves the consistency of the PALACE dataset with in situ data as well as with satellite altimetric data. As such, the method is readily usable on a near-real-time basis, as required by the ARGO project.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.493
Threshold uncertainty score0.591

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Atmospheric and Oceanic TechnologySame topicOceanographic and Atmospheric ProcessesFrench-language works237,207