MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2194103896 · doi:10.1175/jtech-d-15-0153.1

Overview of Bering and Chukchi Sea Wave States for Four Severe Storms following Common Synoptic Tracks

2015· article· en· W2194103896 on OpenAlexaff
K. A. Pingree-Shippee, Norman James Shippee, David Atkinson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOcean Waves and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStormSignificant wave heightClimatologyBuoySea stateMeteorologyWind waveEnvironmental scienceWind wave modelArcticStorm surgeStorm trackWave modelSevere weatherWinter stormGeologyOceanographyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Strong storms occur regularly over the ocean west of Alaska. These systems often loiter, generating persistent winds that can result in fully developed marine states that can maximize damage and hazard potential. Detailed analyses of storm events in terms of the resultant wave states are uncommon. This analysis examines the wave states associated with four particular storm events over the Bering and Chukchi Seas: October 2004, September 2005, and November 2009, and a September 2011 event that exhibited north winds. For each event a brief synoptic overview is presented followed by consideration of the resultant wave state, including parameters such as wave steepness. Wave data come from NOAA’s WAVEWATCH III (WW3) operational global ocean wave model, implemented for scenario use at the Arctic Region Supercomputing Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. In situ data are available from several National Data Buoy Center buoys and a wave buoy located in the Bering Strait, funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and NOAA and deployed for a few months in 2011. WW3 accurately captures the timing and evolution of the observed wave action (onset, growth, peak, and decline of large, steep wind waves) for each of the storm events. As per previous climatologically oriented studies, WW3 is found to underestimate significant wave heights on the order of 0.5 m or less. Also larger discrepancies, on the order of 1–2 m, are observed during periods of peak significant wave heights (Hs). In some cases WW3 overestimated Hs, especially during periods of rapid Hs decline.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.700
Threshold uncertainty score0.397

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Atmospheric and Oceanic TechnologySame topicOcean Waves and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207