MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2940210203 · doi:10.1080/1755876x.2019.1602102

Strategies for simulating the drift of marine debris

2019· article· en· W2940210203 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan V. Durgadoo, Arne Biastoch, Adrian L. New, Siren Rühs, Aylmer J.G. Nurser, Yann Drillet, Jean‐Raymond Bidlot

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Operational Oceanography · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUnderwater Vehicles and Communication Systems
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersExzellenzcluster Ozean der ZukunftNatural Environment Research CouncilHelmholtz-GemeinschaftSight Research UK
KeywordsDebrisBuoyancyTracking (education)CrashMeteorologyComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceGeologyOcean currentCurrent (fluid)Marine engineeringOceanographyMechanicsPhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modelling the drift of marine debris in quasi-real time can be of societal relevance. One pertinent example is Malaysia Airlines flight MH370. The aircraft is assumed to have crashed in the Indian Ocean, leaving floating wreckage to drift on the surface. Some of these items were recovered around the western Indian Ocean. We use ocean currents simulated by an operational ocean model in conjunction with surface Stokes drift to determine the possible paths taken by the debris. We consider: (1) How important is the influence of surface waves on the drift? (2) What are the relative benefits of forward- and backward-tracking in time? (3) Does including information from more items refine the most probable crash-site region? Our results highlight a critical contribution of Stokes drift and emphasise the need to know precisely the buoyancy characteristics of the items. The differences between the tracking approaches provide a measure of uncertainty which can be minimised by simulating a sufficiently large number of virtual debris. Given the uncertainties associated with the timings of the debris sightings, we show that at least 5 items are required to achieve an optimal most probable crash-site region. The results have implications for other drift simulation applications.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations41
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Operational OceanographySame topicUnderwater Vehicles and Communication SystemsFrench-language works237,207