MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4365142926 · doi:10.5194/essd-2023-64

Measurements of Nearshore Waves through Coherent Arrays of Free-Drifting Wave Buoys

2023· preprint· en· W4365142926 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Edwin J. Rainville, Jim Thomson, Melissa Moulton, Morteza Derakhti

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOcean Waves and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEngineer Research and Development CenterU.S. Coastal Research ProgramMcGill University
KeywordsBuoyGeodesyWind waveWave heightInertial measurement unitGeologySwellRemote sensingSignificant wave heightMeteorologyPhysicsEngineeringAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Along coastlines, surface gravity wave breaking occurs in complex spatial and temporal patterns that significantly impact erosion, scalar transport, and flooding. Numerical models are used to predict these processes, but many models lack sufficient evaluation with observations during storm events. To fill the need for more nearshore wave measurements during extreme conditions, we deployed coherent arrays of small-scale, free-drifting wave buoys named microSWIFTs. The result is a large dataset covering a range of conditions. The microSWIFT is a small wave buoy equipped with a GPS module and Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) used to directly measure the buoy’s global position, horizontal velocities, rotation rates, accelerations, and heading.We use an Attitude and Heading Reference System (AHRS), 9 degrees-of-freedom Kalman filter to rotate the measured accelerations from the reference frame of the buoy to the Earth reference frame. We then use the corrected accelerations to compute the vertical velocity and sea surface elevation. The measurements were collected over a 27-day field experiment in October of 2021 at the US Army Corps of Engineers Field Research Facility in Duck, NC. The microSWIFTs were deployed as a series of coherent arrays, meaning they all sampled simultaneously with a common time reference, leading to a robust spatial and temporal dataset during each deployment. We evaluate wave spectral energy density estimates from individual microSWIFTs by comparing them with a nearby acoustic waves and currents (AWAC) sensor. We also compare significant wave height estimates from the coherent arrays with the nearby AWAC estimates. A zero crossing algorithm is applied to each buoy time series of sea surface elevation to extract realizations of measured surface gravity waves, yielding 116,307 wave realizations throughout the experiment. These measurements spanned offshore significant wave heights ranging from 0.5 meters to 3 meters and peak wave periods ranging from 5 to 15 seconds over the entire experiment. These data are available at https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.hx3ffbgk0 (Rainville et al., 2023) and will be used as a validation dataset for wave-averaged and wave-resolving models and will be used to investigate nearshore wave dynamics.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.172
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.138 · 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.

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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOcean Waves and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207