MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2788432755 · doi:10.1175/jtech-d-17-0099.1

Do High-Frequency Radars Measure the Wave-Induced Stokes Drift?

2018· article· en· W2788432755 on OpenAlexafffund
Cédric Chavanne

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOcean Waves and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
FundersMarine Environmental Observation Prediction and Response Network
KeywordsStokes driftPhysicsWavelengthSurface waveRadarDoppler effectStokes waveComputational physicsOpticsWave propagationBreaking waveTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT High-frequency (HF) radars remotely measure ocean near-surface currents based on the Doppler shift of electromagnetic waves backscattered by surface gravity waves with half the electromagnetic wavelength, called Bragg waves. Since their phase velocity is affected not only by wave–current interactions with vertically sheared mean Eulerian currents but also by wave–wave interactions with all the other waves present at the sea surface, HF radars should measure a quantity related to the Stokes drift in addition to mean Eulerian currents. However, the literature is inconsistent—both theoretically and experimentally—on the specific expression and even on the existence of the Stokes drift contribution to the HF radar measurements. Three different expressions that have been proposed in the literature are reviewed and discussed in light of the relevant published experimental results: 1) the weighted depth-averaged Stokes drift, 2) the filtered surface Stokes drift, and 3) half of the surface Stokes drift. Effective measurement depths for these three expressions are derived for the Phillips wave spectrum. Recent experimental results tend to discard the second expression but are not inconsistent with the first and third expressions. The latter is physically appealing, since it is a quasi-Eulerian quantity that would be measured by a current meter at a fixed horizontal position but allowed to follow the free surface moving vertically up and down with the passage of the waves. A definitive answer will require further experimental investigations.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations15
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Atmospheric and Oceanic TechnologySame topicOcean Waves and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207