MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386000675 · doi:10.1049/rsn2.12452

Extraction of the significant wave height from synthetic HF radar data acquired on a floating platform

2023· article· en· W4386000675 on OpenAlexaff
Sepideh Hashemi, Reza Shahidi, Eric W. Gill

Bibliographic record

VenueIET Radar Sonar & Navigation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOcean Waves and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSea stateBuoyGeodesySignificant wave heightWind waveRadarRemote sensingGeologyWave heightCalibrationAntenna (radio)Surface waveDoppler effectEnvelope (radar)AcousticsDisplacement (psychology)Computer scienceMathematicsPhysicsTelecommunicationsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The usual procedure for extracting ocean surface information from data acquired from a high‐frequency surface wave radar transmitting from a floating platform is to first compensate for the motion of the antenna in the acquired motion‐contaminated Doppler spectrum and then extract the ocean wave parameters from the motion‐compensated result. The authors propose a new real‐time method to estimate the significant wave height directly from the antenna's received electric field in the time‐domain without requiring prior knowledge of the motion parameters or performing motion compensation. Based on the relation between the ocean surface displacement and the received electric field, this method calculates the significant wave height from the windowed variance of the upper envelope of the received electric field. A preliminary calibration is required, which can be carried out either by the deployment of a wave buoy or by analysing the data over a time period during which the sea state varies. The results from this simple proposed technique show that it may be used to estimate the significant wave height with a root‐mean‐square error (RMSE) between 10 and 14 cm over a wide range of significant wave height values.

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 score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.414

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIET Radar Sonar & NavigationSame topicOcean Waves and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207