MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2737201411 · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2017.2723431

An Empirical Mode Decomposition Method for Sea Surface Wind Measurements From X-Band Nautical Radar Data

2017· article· en· W2737201411 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Weimin Huang, Xinlong Liu, Eric W. Gill

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · 2017
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
KeywordsWind speedResidualRemote sensingRadarAnemometerWind directionEnvironmental scienceMeteorologySynthetic aperture radarGeologyComputer scienceGeographyAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, sea surface wind direction and speed are obtained from X-band nautical radar images. A data control strategy is proposed to distinguish rain-free and rain-contaminated radar data. The radar data are decomposed by an ensemble empirical mode decomposition method into several intrinsic mode functions (IMFs) and a residual. A normalization scheme is applied to the first IMF to obtain the amplitude modulation (AM) component. Wind direction is determined from the residual for the rain-free and high-wind-speed rain-contaminated data, and from the AM portion of the first IMF for the low-wind-speed rain-contaminated data, based on curve fitting a harmonic function. Wind speed is determined from a combination of the residual and the AM part of the first IMF for both rain-free and rain-contaminated data using a logarithmic relationship. Results employing ship-borne radar and anemometer data collected in a sea trial off the east coast of Canada are presented. The root-mean-square differences for wind direction and speed measurements are 11.5° and 1.31 m/s, respectively, compared with reference values from anemometers.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.301 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations35
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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