MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914855515 · doi:10.1080/07038992.2018.1516130

Gulf Stream Detection from SAR Doppler Anomaly

2018· article· en· W2914855515 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Katerina Biron, Wesley Van Wychen, P.W. Vachon

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Remote Sensing · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOcean Waves and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnomaly (physics)Doppler effectGeographyAnomaly detectionRemote sensingGeologyCartographyGeodesyComputer scienceData miningPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work presents a Gulf Stream (GS) North Wall (GSNW) detection algorithm applicable to Sentinel-1 Radial surface Velocity (RVL) products derived from Doppler centroid analysis of synthetic aperture radar (SAR) data collected off the east coast of Canada from February 2017 to August 2017. Visual comparison of the extracted location of the GSNW (obtained by evaluating the peak RVL gradient in the azimuth direction), and the estimated location of the GSNW as determined by the U.S. Naval Oceanographic Office and a GSNW search region (GSNWSR), indicates that the algorithm is capable of detecting the GSNW in ∼80% of the cases evaluated. Results are dependent on the geophysical orientation of the GS across the SAR swath, such that the GSNW detector performed most reliably when the GS was oriented across the swath resulting in maximized surface velocities in the range direction. When the GS meandered, or when GS eddies appeared in the RVL data, the GSNW was often partially detected or detected multiple times, reducing confidence in the extracted location. It is anticipated that the results obtained using the Sentinel-1 RVL products will be applicable to SAR data from other platforms.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.822

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Remote SensingSame topicOcean Waves and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207