MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001544385 · doi:10.1175/jtech-d-11-00088.1

Toward Automated Identification of Sea Surface Temperature Front Signatures in Radarsat-2 Images

2011· article· en· W2001544385 on OpenAlexaffabout
Chris T. Jones, Todd D. Sikora, P.W. Vachon, John Wolfe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSea surface temperatureSynthetic aperture radarComputer scienceIdentification (biology)Feature (linguistics)Front (military)Remote sensingCloud computingSignature (topology)Support vector machineMeteorologyArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)GeologyClimatologyGeographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Canadian Forces Meteorology and Oceanography Center produces a near-daily ocean feature analysis, based on sea surface temperature (SST) images collected by spaceborne radiometers, to keep the fleet informed of the location of tactically important ocean features. Ubiquitous cloud cover hampers these data. In this paper, a methodology for the identification of SST front signatures in cloud-independent synthetic aperture radar (SAR) images is described. Accurate identification of ocean features in SAR images, although attainable to an experienced analyst, is a difficult process to automate. As a first attempt, the authors aimed to discriminate between signatures of SST fronts and those caused by all other processes. Candidate SST front signatures were identified in Radarsat-2 images using a Canny edge detector. A feature vector of textural and contextual measures was constructed for each candidate edge, and edges were validated by comparison with coincident SST images. Each candidate was classified as being an SST front signature or the signature of another process using logistic regression. The resulting probability that a candidate was correctly classified as an SST front signature was between 0.50 and 0.70. The authors concluded that improvement in classification accuracy requires a set of measures that can differentiate between signatures of SST fronts and those of certain atmospheric phenomena and that a search for such measures should include a wider range of computational methods than was considered. As such, this work represents a step toward the goal of a general ocean feature classification algorithm.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.488

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations21
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Atmospheric and Oceanic TechnologySame topicOceanographic and Atmospheric ProcessesFrench-language works237,207