scholarly journals Modeling Multiscale and Multiphysics Coastal Ocean Processes: A Discussion on Necessity, Status, and Advances

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. 847
Author(s):  
Hansong Tang ◽  
Charles Reid Nichols ◽  
Lynn Donelson Wright ◽  
Donald Resio
Keyword(s):  
Model Comparison ◽  
Environmental Science ◽  
Spatial Scales ◽  
River Mouth ◽  
Coastal Ocean ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Turbidity Currents ◽  
Marine Science ◽  
Ocean Flows ◽  
Ocean Processes

Coastal ocean flows are interconnected by a complex suite of processes. Examples are inlet jets, river mouth effluents, ocean currents, surface gravity waves, internal waves, wave overtopping, and wave slamming on coastal structures. It has become necessary to simulate such oceanographic phenomena directly and simultaneously in many disciplines, including coastal engineering, environmental science, and marine science. Oceanographic processes exhibit distinct behaviors at specific temporal and spatial scales, and they are multiscale, multiphysics in nature; these processes are described by different sets of governing equations and are often modeled individually. In order to draw the attention of the scientific community and promote their simulations, a Special Issue of the Journal of Marine Science and Engineering entitled “Multiscale, Multiphysics Modelling of Coastal Ocean Processes: Paradigms and Approaches” was published. The papers collected in this issue cover physical phenomena, such as wind-driven flows, coastal flooding, turbidity currents, and modeling techniques such as model comparison, model coupling, parallel computation, and domain decomposition. This article outlines the needs for modeling of coastal ocean flows involving multiple physical processes at different scales, and it discusses the implications of the collected papers. Additionally, it reviews the current status and offers a roadmap with numerical methods, data collection, and artificial intelligence as future endeavors.

scholarly journals Machine Learning Quantitation of Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease: A Systematic Review of Clinical Applications

Diagnostics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 551
Author(s):  
Chris Boyd ◽  
Greg Brown ◽  
Timothy Kleinig ◽  
Joseph Dawson ◽  
Mark D. McDonnell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Machine Learning ◽  
Coronary Artery Disease ◽  
Coronary Artery ◽  
Model Comparison ◽  
Disease Risk ◽  
Imaging Modalities ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Body Regions ◽  
Artery Disease

Research into machine learning (ML) for clinical vascular analysis, such as those useful for stroke and coronary artery disease, varies greatly between imaging modalities and vascular regions. Limited accessibility to large diverse patient imaging datasets, as well as a lack of transparency in specific methods, are obstacles to further development. This paper reviews the current status of quantitative vascular ML, identifying advantages and disadvantages common to all imaging modalities. Literature from the past 8 years was systematically collected from MEDLINE® and Scopus database searches in January 2021. Papers satisfying all search criteria, including a minimum of 50 patients, were further analysed and extracted of relevant data, for a total of 47 publications. Current ML image segmentation, disease risk prediction, and pathology quantitation methods have shown sensitivities and specificities over 70%, compared to expert manual analysis or invasive quantitation. Despite this, inconsistencies in methodology and the reporting of results have prevented inter-model comparison, impeding the identification of approaches with the greatest potential. The clinical potential of this technology has been well demonstrated in Computed Tomography of coronary artery disease, but remains practically limited in other modalities and body regions, particularly due to a lack of routine invasive reference measurements and patient datasets.

scholarly journals Next Generation European Research Vessels: Current Status and Foreseeable Evolution

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Per Nieuwejaar ◽  
Valerie Mazauric ◽  
Christian Betzler ◽  
Mafalda Carapuco ◽  
Andre Cattrijsse ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Position Paper ◽  
Research Vessel ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Marine Science ◽  
European Research ◽  
Human Capabilities ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
The Future ◽  
Science Community ◽  
High Level

This position paper provides a review of the current European research vessel fleet, its capabilities and equipment, assessing its ability to support marine science across the globe now and into the future. It particularly looks at current and future capabilities in the context of deep sea and Polar research. It also takes a wider vision, assessing the importance of these vessels in the ocean and earth observing landscape. This review includes not only technological but also human capabilities, looking at training needs for crew and technicians to ensure they can continue to deliver on critical science needs. It also considers the ways in which the current European fleet is managed.This Position Paper sets out recommendations for how the fleet will need to develop in the future to ensure that it will continue to provide the same high level of support to science globally, as well as highlighting ways in which management could be made more efficient. It is aimed at national- and European-level policy makers and funders, as well as the marine science community and the research vessel operator community.

Evaluation of SIFOM-FVCOM system for high-fidelity simulation of small-scale coastal ocean flows

2016 ◽  
Vol 28 (6) ◽  
pp. 994-1002 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Qu ◽  
H. S. Tang ◽  
A. Agrawal ◽  
C. B. Jiang ◽  
B. Deng
Keyword(s):  
Coastal Ocean ◽  
Small Scale ◽  
High Fidelity ◽  
High Fidelity Simulation ◽  
Ocean Flows

The first environmental science experiments on the new microfocus spectroscopy beamline at Diamond

2008 ◽  
Vol 72 (1) ◽  
pp. 197-200 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. F. W. Mosselmans ◽  
P. D. Quinn ◽  
J. Roque Rosell ◽  
K. D. Atkinson ◽  
A. J. Dent ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Light Source ◽  
Environmental Science ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Fe Oxides ◽  
Mn Oxides

AbstractSynchrotron based μ-XRF, μ-XAS and μ-XRD have made a major impact in the field of environmental science in the last ten years. One of the first seven ‘day one’ beamlines on the Diamond Light Source is a microfocus spectroscopy beamline, beamline I18. Here the current status of the beamline and the opportunities it presents in the field of environmental science are described, with results from two of the first experiments also included. The first is based on the use of bonemeal to remediate soil. We used Zn K-edge and Pb L3-edge spectroscopy to characterize the speciation of these two elements on a soil after bonemeal treatment. The results are compared with bulk measurements taken on the whole soil and standard materials. The second experiment described here is a study of the speciation and association of Ni in a laterite from Moa Bay, Cuba. Here the differences in the Ni speciation associated with Mn oxides are examined and compared with Fe oxides phases.

scholarly journals Spatial scales of optical variability in the coastal ocean: Implications for remote sensing and in situ sampling

2016 ◽  
Vol 121 (6) ◽  
pp. 4194-4208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wesley J. Moses ◽  
Steven G. Ackleson ◽  
Johnathan W. Hair ◽  
Chris A. Hostetler ◽  
W. David Miller
Keyword(s):  
Remote Sensing ◽  
Spatial Scales ◽  
Coastal Ocean ◽  
Optical Variability

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 944 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Environmental Science ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Acceptance Rate ◽  
Marine Science ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Review State ◽  
E Mail ◽  
Scientific Standards

All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Double-blind Answer: We use a double-blind type of peer review process. The author and reviewer identities are hidden to each other. The papers that pass the plagiarism check, then proceed to review process. Review process was conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. Our reviewers are the eminent experts, prominent scientists and researchers. We use a double-blind type of peer review process. We provide reviewers an article grading form for each paper. The article grading form contains general comments and also specific suggestions and feedbacks for each section in the paper. The reviewer also asked to make a decision regarding the feasibility of publishing a paper along with the scientific reason behind it, such as substance suitability and data eligibility. Articles will not be processed further, if the results of the review state that the article is not eligible with the reviewer’s notes on the assessment form. We send the paper to the reviewer, for one until two weeks, to be reviewed. Then, we forwarded the results of the review to the author so that it could be improved according to the suggestions and notes of the reviewer. Next, we sent the results of the improvements from the authors back to the reviewers to be followed up, whether they have been well elaborated or still need improvement. When the revised paper still needed some improvement, the steps repeated until the reviewer verified that the article is feasible and ready to be processed to the final stage by the editor (layout and proofread). • Conference submission management system: Answer: All the ICMS 2021 papers were processed by committee email and also by personal message between committees and authors. • Number of submissions received: Answer: 79 • Number of submissions sent for review: Answer: 78 • Number of submissions accepted: Answer: 71 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): Answer: 89.9 % • Average number of reviews per paper: Answer: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: Answer: 32 reviewers • Any additional info on review process: Answer: All the submitted papers were checked by plagiarism system (Turnitin) to see the plagiarism rate. We only accepted paper that has a plagiarism value below 20%. • Contact person for queries: Answer: Dr. Steven Solikin E-mail: [email protected] Department of Marine Science and Technology, Faculty of Fisheries and Marine Science, IPB University, Dramaga, Bogor 16680, West Java, Indonesia Phone: +62 878 8850 3459

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document