MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3038712726 · doi:10.1029/2020gl089436

Application of Deep Learning to Estimate Atmospheric Gravity Wave Parameters in Reanalysis Data Sets

2020· article· en· W3038712726 on OpenAlexaff
Daisuke Matsuoka, Shingo Watanabe, K. Sato, Sho Kawazoe, Wanqing Yu, Steve Easterbrook

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCore Research for Evolutional Science and TechnologyPrecursory Research for Embryonic Science and TechnologyJapan Science and Technology Agency
KeywordsMomentum (technical analysis)Gravity waveWavenumberGravitational waveAtmosphere (unit)Flux (metallurgy)GeologyZonal and meridionalAtmospheric sciencesClimatologyMeteorologyGeophysicsPhysicsOpticsAstrophysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Gravity waves play an essential role in driving and maintaining global circulation. To understand their contribution in the atmosphere, the accurate reproduction of their distribution is important. Thus, a deep learning approach for the estimation of gravity wave momentum fluxes was proposed, and its performance at 100 hPa was tested using data from low‐resolution zonal and meridional winds, temperature, and specific humidity at 300, 700, and 850 hPa in the Hokkaido region (Japan). To this end, a deep convolutional neural network was trained on 29‐year reanalysis data sets (JRA‐55 and DSJRA‐55), and the final 5‐year data were reserved for evaluation. The results showed that the fine‐scale momentum flux distribution of the gravity waves could be estimated at a reasonable computational cost. Particularly, in winter, when gravity waves are stronger, the median root means square errors (RMSEs) of the maximum momentum flux and the characteristic zonal wavenumber were 0.06–0.13 mPa and 1.0 × 10 −5 , respectively.

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 score0.860
Threshold uncertainty score0.655

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations42
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsFrench-language works237,207