MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297846660 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2035559/v1

Development and testing of a 2D offshore oil spill modeling tool (OSMT) supported by an effective calibration method

2022· preprint· en· W4297846660 on OpenAlexaff
Zhaoyang Yang, Zhi Chen, Kenneth Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicOil Spill Detection and Mitigation
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans CanadaConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOil spillCalibrationTrajectoryEnvironmental scienceMetric (unit)Computer scienceMarine engineeringDivergence (linguistics)Petroleum engineeringEngineeringMathematicsEnvironmental engineeringStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Spill trajectory prediction (STP) is essential to decision-making support for oil pollution preparedness and response. An Oil Spill Modeling Tool (OSMT) has been developed in this study to predict the transport and fate of oil spills from surface releases. Particularly, the Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence method is adopted as a performance metric for the first time to formulate a calibration framework for STP from the Lagrangian transport model (LTM). By finding the candidate with minimal KL divergences from modeling scenarios using designed parameter combinations, the prediction discrepancy between simulated trajectories of the LTM and oil slicks detected from satellite images are reduced. The developed approach has first been evaluated through a numerical comparison analysis between OSMT and Operational Oil Modeling Environment (GNOME) model to examine model validity in a hypothetical case. Subsequently, a real case study is conducted to examine the applicability and effectiveness of the KL divergence-based oil spill trajectory modeling method. The study results indicate that OSMT can provide reliable spill trajectory simulations, and the KL divergence-based calibration method is effective in calibrating the oil spill LTM.

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)0.003
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.836
Threshold uncertainty score0.857

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicOil Spill Detection and MitigationFrench-language works237,207