MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3084762522 · doi:10.1175/jtech-d-20-0013.1

Evaluating the Leeway Coefficient of Ocean Drifters Using Operational Marine Environmental Prediction Systems

2020· article· en· W3084762522 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Graig Sutherland, Nancy Soontiens, Fraser Davidson, G. C. Moore Smith, Natacha B. Bernier, Hauke Blanken, Douglas J. Schillinger, Guillaume Marcotte, Johannes Röhrs, Knut‐Frode Dagestad, Kai H. Christensen, Øyvind Breivik

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsBedford Institute of OceanographyResponse Biomedical (Canada)Fisheries and Oceans CanadaEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersNorges ForskningsrådGovernment of Canada
KeywordsDrifterEnvironmental scienceInertial frame of referenceTrajectoryMeteorologyOcean currentScale (ratio)GeologyClimatologyMathematicsPhysicsLagrangianApplied mathematicsClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The water following characteristics of six different drifter types are investigated using two different operational marine environmental prediction systems: one produced by Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) and the other produced by MET Norway (METNO). These marine prediction systems include ocean circulation models, atmospheric models, and surface wave models. Two leeway models are tested for use in drift object prediction: an implicit leeway model where the Stokes drift is implicit in the leeway coefficient, and an explicit leeway model where the Stokes drift is provided by the wave model. Both leeway coefficients are allowed to vary in direction and time in order to perfectly reproduce the observed drifter trajectory. This creates a time series of the leeway coefficients that exactly reproduce the observed drifter trajectories. Mean values for the leeway coefficients are consistent with previous studies that utilized direct observations of the leeway. For all drifters and models, the largest source of variance in the leeway coefficient occurs at the inertial frequency and the evidence suggests it is related to uncertainties in the ocean inertial currents.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations34
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Atmospheric and Oceanic TechnologySame topicOceanographic and Atmospheric ProcessesFrench-language works237,207