MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2563915952 · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2016.2635078

Wind Direction Estimation From Rain-Contaminated Marine Radar Data Using the Ensemble Empirical Mode Decomposition Method

2016· article· en· W2563915952 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Xinlong Liu, Weimin Huang, Eric W. Gill

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOcean Waves and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDefence Research and Development Canada
KeywordsHilbert–Huang transformRadarRemote sensingMode (computer interface)Standard deviationAzimuthRadar imagingGeologySynthetic aperture radarWind speedAlgorithmComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyMathematicsStatisticsGeographyComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two ensemble empirical mode decomposition (EEMD)-based methods are presented to retrieve wind direction from rain-contaminated X-band nautical radar sea surface images. Each radar image is first decomposed into disparate intrinsic mode function (IMF) components using 1-D EEMD or 2-D EEMD. Then, the standard deviation of one IMF component or the combination of several IMF components as a function of azimuth is least-squares fitted to a harmonic function to determine the wind direction. Tests of the proposed algorithms are conducted by employing radar and anemometer data collected in a sea trial during rain events off the east coast of Canada. The results show that compared with the 1-D discrete-Fourier-transform-based method, both the 1-D- and 2-D-EEMD-based algorithms improve the wind direction results in rain events, showing a reduction of 7.4° and 8.7°, respectively, in the root-mean-square difference with respect to the reference.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations43
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote SensingSame topicOcean Waves and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207