Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aims to illustrate and test a method, based on the Two-Dimensional Continuous Wavelet Transform (2D-CWT), developed to extract the wind directions from the Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) images. The knowledge of the wind direction is essential to retrieve the wind speed by using the radar-backscatter versus wind speed algorithms. The method has been applied to 61 SAR images from different satellites (Envisat, COSMO-SkyMed, Radarsat-2 and Sentinel-1A,B), and the results have been compared with the analysis wind fields from the European Centre for Medium-range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) model, with in situ reports and with scatterometer data when available. The 2D-CWT method provides satisfactory results, both in areas a few kilometres from the coast and offshore. It is reliable as it produces good direction estimates, no matter what the characteristics of the SAR are. Statistics reports a success in the SAR wind direction estimates in 95% of cases (in 83% of cases the SAR-ECMWF wind direction difference is < ± 20 ∘ , in 92 % < ± 30 ∘ ) with a mean directional bias B θ < 7 ∘ . The SAR derived wind directions cannot be said to be validated, as the data available at present cannot be really representative of the wind field in the coastal area. However, the figures given by SAR winds are highly valuable even not properly validated, providing an independent and unique view of the spatial variability of the wind over the sea, which is possible by using the 2D-CWT method to derive the wind directions.
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) | 0.000 | 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".