MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2587107519 · doi:10.3390/rs9020141

The Estimation of the North American Great Lakes Turbulent Fluxes Using Satellite Remote Sensing and MERRA Reanalysis Data

2017· article· en· W2587107519 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sitthisak Moukomla, Peter D. Blanken

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGeo-Informatics and Space Technology Development Agency
KeywordsEddy covarianceEnvironmental scienceLatent heatSensible heatShoalFlux (metallurgy)Atmospheric sciencesSatelliteMeteorologyGeologyOceanographyGeographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study provides the first technique to investigate the turbulent fluxes over the Great Lakes from July 2001 to December 2014 using a combination of data from satellite remote sensing, reanalysis data sets, and direct measurements. Turbulent fluxes including latent heat flux (QE) and sensible heat flux (QH) were estimated using the bulk aerodynamic approach, then compared with the direct eddy covariance measurements from the rooftop of three lighthouses—Stannard Rock Lighthouse (SR) in Lake Superior, White Shoal Lighthouse (WS) in Lake Michigan, and Spectacle Reef Lighthouse (SP) in Lake Huron. The relationship between modeled and measured QE and QH were in a good statistical agreement, for QE, R2 varied from 0.41 (WS), 0.74 (SR), and 0.87 (SP) with RMSE of 5.68, 6.93, and 4.67 W·m−2, respectively, while QH, R2 ranged from 0.002 (WS), 0.8030 (SP) and 0.94 (SR) with RMSE of 6.97, 4.39 and 4.90 W·m−2 respectively. Both monthly mean QE and QH were highest in January for all lakes except Lake Ontario, which was highest in early December. The turbulent fluxes then sharply drop in March and are negligible during June and July. The evaporation processes continue again in August.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.228 · 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.

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

Citations15
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207