A Reanalysis of the October 2016 "Meteotsunami" in British Columbia with\n Help of High-Frequency Radars and Autoregressive Modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On October 14th, 2016, the station of Tofino (British Columbia, Canada)\nissued the first ever real-time tsunami alert triggered by a coastal\nHigh-Frequency Radar system, based on the identification of abnormal surface\ncurrent patterns. The detection occurred in the absence of any reported seismic\nevent but coincided with a strong atmospheric perturbation, which qualified the\nevent as meteo-tsunami. We re-analyze this case in the light of a new radar\nsignal processing method which was designed recently for inverting fast-varying\nsea surface currents from the complex voltage time series received on the\nantennas. This method, based on an Auto-regressive modeling combined with a\nMaximum Entropy Method, yields a dramatic improvement in both the\nSignal-to-Noise Ratio and the quality of the surface current estimation for\nvery short integration time. This makes it possible to evidence the propagation\nof a sharp wave front of surface current during the event and to map its\nmagnitude and arrival time over the radar coverage. We show that the amplitude\nand speed of the inferred residual current do not comply with a Proudman\nresonance mechanism but are consistent with the propagation of a low-pressure\natmospheric front and wind vectors as revealed by satellite imagery. This\nindicates that the event that triggered a tsunami alert is more likely a storm\nsurge than a true meteo-tsunami. Beyond this specific case, another outcome of\nthe analysis is the promising use of oceanographic radars as proxy's for the\ncharacterization of atmospheric fronts.\n
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".