Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since 1999 the Canadian Space Agency (CSA) has undertaken a joint project, called Hurricane Watch (HW), with the Canada Centre for Remote Sensing (CCRS), the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory (NOAA/AOML), and more recently the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO). This project has evolved from archival data searches to storm monitoring and dedicated planning. Program focus in recent years has been an effort to plan RADARSAT-1 coverage with coincident NOAA aircraft penetration flights. In this paper, we will describe the CSA Mission Planning Center, the RADARSAT-1 planning timeline and guidelines, which form the basis for all planning, and activities related to storm tracking and request submission to support the HW program. The CSA maintains responsibilities for the overall management of issues related to data acquisition for the program, which involve: 1) monitoring active and potential hurricanes and tropical storms; 2) determining possible RADARSAT-1 coverage and generating requests; 3) submission of requests; 4) planning requests through routine operations and standard procedures; 5) monitoring status of submissions; 6) communication with project partners, and 7) acting as a liaison for project partners. We will discuss the challenges of hurricane imaging due to sometimes unpredictable storm trajectories coupled with imaging geometry, coverage and planning constraints. Finally, 2003 post-season results and imagery will be presented to demonstrate the contribution of RADARSAT-1 data in the study of hurricanes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".