MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4233230788 · doi:10.1002/essoar.10503511.1

Application of Deep Learning to Estimate Atmospheric Gravity Wave Parameters in Reanalysis Datasets

2020· preprint· en· W4233230788 on OpenAlexaff
Daisuke Matsuoka, Shingo Watanabe, K. Sato, Sho Kawazoe, Wei Yu, Steve Easterbrook

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Waves and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersJapan Science and Technology Agency
KeywordsElectronic mailWorld Wide WebComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gravity waves play an essential role in driving and maintaining global circulation. To understand their contribution in the atmosphere, the accurate reproduction of their distribution is important. Thus, a deep learning approach for the estimation of gravity wave momentum fluxes was proposed, and its performance at 100 hPa was tested using data from low resolution zonal and meridional winds, temperature, and specific humidity at 300, 700, and 850 hPa in the Hokkaido region (Japan). To this end, a deep convolutional neural network was trained on 29-year reanalysis datasets (JRA-55 and DSJRA-55), and the final 5-year data were reserved for evaluation. The results showed that compared to ground truth data, the fine-scale momentum flux distribution of the gravity waves could be estimated at a low computational cost. Particularly, in winter, when gravity waves are stronger, the median RMSE of the maximum momentum flux in the target area was 0.06–0.13 mPa.

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)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.257
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSeismic Waves and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207