MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1511435538 · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2015.2429917

Microwave Backscatter From Arctic Lake Ice and Polarimetric Implications

2015· article· en· W1511435538 on OpenAlexaff
Donald K. Atwood, Grant Gunn, Chris Roussi, Jiangfeng Wu, Claude Duguay, Kamal Sarabandi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScatterometerSea iceBackscatter (email)ScatteringRemote sensingGeologyPolarimetrySea ice thicknessSynthetic aperture radarSlushArcticSea ice concentrationRadarArctic ice packOceanographyOpticsWind speedPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polarimetric synthetic aperture radar satellite and ground-based Ku- and X-band scatterometer measurements are used to explore the scattering mechanism for ice in shallow Arctic lakes, wherein strong radiometric responses are seen for floating ice, and low returns are evident where the ice has grounded. Scatterometer measurements confirm that high backscatter is from the ice/water interface, whereas polarimetric decomposition suggests that the dominant scattering mechanism from that interface is single bounce. Using Fresnel equations, a simple model for surface bounce from the ice/water interface is proposed, and its predictions are supported by experimental parameters such as co-pol phase difference, co-pol ratio, and the results of rigorous numerical modeling. Despite early research suggesting double-bounce scattering from columnar air bubbles and the ice/water interface as the dominant scattering mechanism in shallow lakes, this paper strongly supports a single-bounce model.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations89
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote SensingSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207