MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2999029413 · doi:10.1109/lgrs.2019.2961917

Two New Methods for the Extraction of Significant Wave Heights From Received HF-Radar Time Series

2020· article· en· W2999029413 on OpenAlexafffund
Reza Shahidi, Eric W. Gill

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOcean Waves and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRadarBuoyAlgorithmDoppler effectComputer scienceMathematicsRemote sensingArtificial intelligencePhysicsGeologyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For close to half a century, the usual procedure to determine ocean surface information from HF-radar data has been to first form the Doppler spectrum from the received time series, and then process the result to extract important wave parameters, such as significant wave height, primary wave period, principal wave direction, or even the full directional ocean wave spectrum. In the current work, we bypass the calculation of the Doppler spectrum and still calculate the significant wave height (Hs) from the received radar data using two related proposed methods. The first calculates Hsfrom the variances of the short-time Fourier transform coefficients of the first-order received field. The second uses the estimated variance of the received electrical field signal to determine Hs. Both methods require an initial external calibration stage, which can be either performed analytically from the data or by deploying a wave buoy. The validity of the proposed methods is tested with field data from which a significant correlation with the values of Hsmeasured independently by a wave buoy is obtained.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing LettersSame topicOcean Waves and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207