MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3040330859 · doi:10.3390/jmse8070484

Evaluation of Structured and Unstructured Models for Application in Operational Ocean Forecasting in Nearshore Waters

2020· article· en· W3040330859 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Shannon Nudds, Youyu Lu, Simon Higginson, Susan Haigh, Jean-Philippe Paquin, Mitchell O’Flaherty-Sproul, Stephanne Taylor, Hauke Blanken, Guillaume Marcotte, G. C. Moore Smith, Natacha B. Bernier, Phillip MacAulay, Yongsheng Wu, Li Zhai, Xianmin Hu, Jérôme Chanut, Michael Dunphy, Frédéric Dupont, David A. Greenberg, Fraser Davidson, Fred H. Page

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Marine Science and Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsCanadian Hydrographic ServiceBedford Institute of OceanographyEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersGovernment of Canada
KeywordsBathymetryEnvironmental scienceOcean currentUnstructured gridBayOceanographyHarbourChannel (broadcasting)GridMeteorologyHydrology (agriculture)GeologyComputer scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The oceanography sub-initiative of Canada’s Oceans Protection Plan was tasked to develop high-resolution nearshore ocean models for enhanced marine safety and emergency response, fitting into the multi-scale, multi-level nested operational ocean forecasting systems. For decision making on eventual 24/7 operational support, two ocean models (a structured grid model, NEMO (Nucleus for European Modelling of the Ocean); and an unstructured grid model, FVCOM (Finite Volume Coastal Ocean Model), were evaluated. The evaluation process includes the selection of the study area, the requirements for model setup, and the evaluation metrics. The chosen study area, Saint John Harbour in the Bay of Fundy, features strong tides, significant river runoff and a narrow tidal-river channel. Both models were configured with the same sources of bathymetry and forcing data. FVCOM achieved 50-100 m horizontal resolution in the inner harbour and included wetting/drying. NEMO achieved 100 m resolution in the harbour with a three-level one-way nesting configuration. Statistical metrics showed that one-year simulations with both models achieved comparable accuracies against the observed tidal and non-tidal water levels and currents, temperature and salinity, and the trajectories of surface drifters, but the computational cost of FVCOM was significantly less than that of NEMO.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.145

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Marine Science and EngineeringSame topicOceanographic and Atmospheric ProcessesFrench-language works237,207