MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Oceanic Response Based on the Rectified Data during Three Typhoons in the northern South China Sea

2020· preprint· en· W3091014613 on OpenAlexaff
Daoxun Ke, Han Zhang, Youmin Tang, Juncheng Zuo, Dongfeng Xu, Chenghao Yang, Zhixiong Yao, Zheqi Shen, Di Tian

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geophysical Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaChina Ocean Mineral Resources Research and Development AssociationNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsTyphoonBuoyAnomaly (physics)GeodesyAmplitudePhase velocityDisplacement (psychology)GeologyMeteorologyAtmospheric sciencesClimatologyPhysicsOceanographyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three typhoons (Rammasun, Kalmaegi, and Sarika) travelled through the deployed stations in the northern South China Sea from 2014–2016. During the passage of typhoons, strong winds and vigorous currents resulted in horizontal displacement of buoy over 2000 m, vertical displacement of ropes on buoys as much as 200 m. The rectification can correct the warm anomaly to cool anomaly of temperature. These movements lead to biases of raw data, with temperature bias as much as 4°C, salinity as much as 0.05 psu, velocity bias as much as 0.4 m/s. The crosscheck of current velocity from different instruments shows that the bias of overlapping velocity and correlation coefficient after depth rectification obviously enhances. The observation shows that temperature cools 1.5 °C, and 0.1 psu saltier in maximum, the near-inertial current increases to 0.4 m/s in the upper layer. The inertial kinetic energy propagates downward with the upward phase, and the maximum depth can reach over 2000 m.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
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 science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.005

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 head0.183
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.101 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.orgSame topicGeological and Geophysical StudiesFrench-language works237,207