MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996728648 · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2019.2955077

Wind Direction Estimation Using Small-Aperture HF Radar Based on a Circular Array

2019· article· en· W2996728648 on OpenAlexaff
Chen Zhao, Zezong Chen, Jian Li, Longgang Zhang, Weimin Huang, Eric W. Gill

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOcean Waves and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaChina Scholarship CouncilNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsRemote sensingBeamformingRadarWind directionGeologySynthetic aperture radarWind speedComputer scienceAcousticsEnvironmental sciencePhysicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Compact high-frequency (HF) antenna arrays are convenient to deploy. However, using a small-aperture HF surface wave radar for wind direction measurement is still a challenging problem, since an unsatisfactory array pattern degrades the performance of Bragg ratio estimation. To address this issue, a digital beamforming method based on a superdirective synthesis technique for an HF receiving array that consists of seven elements positioned on a 5-m diameter circle is proposed. This superdirective beamforming method contains a sidelobe constraint. Subsequently, a hybrid superdirective beamforming and direction-finding method is adopted to estimate the wind direction using a multifrequency HF radar based on a circular array (MHF-C). The superdirective beamforming approach, as well as the wind direction estimation method, is presented in detail. The wind direction estimation method has been applied to the raw data sets that were collected with two MHF-C radars installed along the coast of the East China Sea in April 2015 and comparisons between radar-derived and in situ wind directions have been made. Ship-mounted anemometers were used to obtain in situ measurements at six sampling locations within the overlapping coverage of both radars. Another comparison between the radar-derived and anemometer-derived wind directions, which were obtained from June 15, 2015 to August 12, 2015, has also been made. The results indicate that the proposed method is effective for wind direction estimation with root-mean-square differences (RMSDs) between 24.1° and 33.1°, when wind speeds were higher than 5 m/s. The analysis encourages us to recommend a minimum wind speed of 5 m/s for reasonably assessing wind direction measurement performance.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.684
Threshold uncertainty score0.797

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 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

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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