MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3108377418 · doi:10.1175/jtech-d-20-0185.1

FOWD: A Free Ocean Wave Dataset for Data Mining and Machine Learning

2021· article· en· W3108377418 on OpenAlexaff
Dion Häfner, Johannes Gemmrich, Markus Jochum

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOcean Waves and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersU.S. Army Corps of EngineersDanish Hydrocarbon Research and Technology Centre, Technical University of DenmarkCalifornia Department of Parks and Recreation
KeywordsComputer scienceWind waveGeologyData miningRemote sensingMachine learningOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The occurrence of extreme (rogue) waves in the ocean is for the most part still shrouded in mystery, as the rare nature of these events makes them difficult to analyze with traditional methods. Modern data mining and machine learning methods provide a promising way out, but they typically rely on the availability of massive amounts of well-cleaned data. To facilitate the application of such data-hungry methods to surface ocean waves, we developed FOWD, a freely available wave dataset and processing framework. FOWD describes the conversion of raw observations into a catalogue that maps characteristic sea state parameters to observed wave quantities. Specifically, we employ a running window approach that respects the non-stationary nature of the oceans, and extensive quality control to reduce bias in the resulting dataset. We also supply a reference Python implementation of the FOWD processing toolkit, which we use to process the entire CDIP buoy data catalogue containing over 4 billion waves. In a first experiment, we find that, when the full elevation time series is available, surface elevation kurtosis and maximum wave height are the strongest univariate predictors for rogue wave activity. When just a spectrum is given, crest-trough correlation, spectral bandwidth, and mean period fill this role.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.919
Threshold uncertainty score0.404

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Atmospheric and Oceanic TechnologySame topicOcean Waves and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207