Snow depth on Arctic sea ice derived from radar: In situ comparisons and time series analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The snow radar being flown on NASA's Operation IceBridge, ongoing aircraft campaigns to the Arctic and the Antarctic are providing unique observations of the depth of snow on the sea ice cover. In this paper, we focus on the radar‐derived snow depth results from the 2009–2012 Arctic campaigns. We develop and evaluate the use of a distinct snow layer tracker to measure snow depth based on a Support Vector Machine (SVM) supervised learning algorithm. The snow radar is designed to detect both the air‐snow and snow‐ice interfaces using ultrawideband frequencies from 2 to 8 GHz. The quality, errors, and repeatability of the snow radar snow depth estimates are examined, based on comparisons with in situ data obtained during two separate sea ice field campaigns, the GreenArc 2009 and the CryoVEx 2011 campaigns off Greenland in the Lincoln Sea. Finally, we analyze 4 years (2009–2012) of three annually repeated sea ice flight lines obtained in early spring, located off Greenland and the Canadian Arctic. We examine the annual variations of snow depth differences between perennial and seasonal ice when available. Overall, the snow layer tracker produced consistent, accurate results for snow depths between 0.10 and ∼0.60 m. This was confirmed with comparisons with the two data sets from the in situ measurement campaigns as well as with the time series analysis, and is consistent with other published results.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".