Estimation of the Wind Field with a Single High-Frequency Radar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over several decades, high-frequency (HF) radars have been employed for remotely measuring various ocean surface parameters, encompassing surface currents, waves, and winds. Wind direction and speed are usually estimated from both first-order and second-order Bragg-resonant scatter from two or more HF radars monitoring the same area of the ocean surface. This limits the observational domain to the common area where second-order scatter is available from at least two radars. Here, we propose to estimate wind direction and speed from the first-order scatter of a single HF radar, yielding the same spatial coverage as for surface radial currents. Wind direction is estimated using the ratio of the positive and negative first-order Bragg peaks intensity, with a new simple algorithm to remove the left/right directional ambiguity from a single HF radar. Wind speed is estimated from wind direction and de-tided surface radial currents using an artificial neural network which has been trained with in situ wind speed observations. Radar-derived wind estimations are compared with in situ observations in the Lower Saint-Lawrence Estuary (Quebec, Canada). The correlation coefficients between radar-estimated and in situ wind directions range from 0.84 to 0.95 for Wellen Radars (WERAs) and from 0.79 to 0.97 for Coastal Ocean Dynamics Applications Radars (CODARs), while the root mean square differences range from 8° to 12° for WERAs and from 10° to 19° for CODARs. Correlation coefficients between the radar-estimated and the in situ wind speeds range from 0.89 to 0.93 for WERAs and from 0.81 to 0.93 for CODARs, while the root mean square differences range from 1.3 m.s−1 to 2.3 m.s−1 for WERAs and from 1.6 m.s−1 to 3.9 m.s−1 for CODARs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".