MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2290436039 · doi:10.1175/jtech-d-15-0143.1

Experimental Assessment of the Performance of High-Frequency CODAR and WERA Radars to Measure Ocean Currents in Partially Ice-Covered Waters

2016· article· en· W2290436039 on OpenAlexaffabout
Emna Kamli, Cédric Chavanne, Dany Dumont

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyFetchRadarShoreWind waveSea iceEnvironmental scienceOceanographyRemote sensing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract High-frequency radars (HFRs) measure ocean surface currents remotely through the Bragg scattering of radio waves by surface gravity waves with wavelengths shorter than 50 m. HFR range is affected by sea ice, which dampens surface gravity waves and limits wind fetch for adjacent open waters. HFR range sensitivity to sea ice concentration was empirically determined for two types of HFR—Coastal Ocean Dynamics Applications Radar (CODAR) and Wellen Radar (WERA)—installed on the shores of the lower St. Lawrence estuary, Canada, during winter 2013. One CODAR was operating at 13.5 MHz on the southern shore, and one WERA was operating at 16.15 MHz on the northern shore. Ranges were determined using a signal-to-noise ratio threshold of 6 dB for first-order Bragg scattering measured by the receive antenna elements. Ranges were normalized for expected ranges in ice-free conditions, using empirical relationships determined during summer 2013 between the range and surface gravity wave energy at the Bragg frequencies. Normalized ranges Γ decrease approximately linearly with increasing sea ice concentration C (averaged over the ice-free observational domain) with a slope close to −1 for both HFR types, that is, Γ = 1 − C. However, for a given sea ice concentration, range can vary significantly depending on the sea ice spatial distribution.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.236

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations12
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Atmospheric and Oceanic TechnologySame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207