MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006107076 · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2014.2336833

Parameterization of Centimeter-Scale Sea Ice Surface Roughness Using Terrestrial LiDAR

2014· article· en· W2006107076 on OpenAlexafffund
Jack Landy, Dustin Isleifson, Alexander S. Komarov, David G. Barber

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersCanada Research ChairsArcticNet
KeywordsSurface roughnessSea iceAutocorrelationRemote sensingGeologySurface finishRangingScatteringLidarAzimuthOpticsGeodesyMaterials sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Microwave scattering from sea ice is partially controlled by the ice surface roughness. In this paper, we propose a technique for calculating 2-D centimeter-scale surface roughness parameters, including the rms height, correlation length, and form of autocorrelation function, from 3-D terrestrial light detection and ranging data. We demonstrate that a single scale of roughness can be extracted from complex sea ice surfaces, incorporating multiple scales of topography, after sophisticated 2-D detrending, and calculate roughness parameters for a wide range of artificial and natural sea ice surface types. The 2-D technique is shown to be considerably more precise than standard 1-D profiling techniques and can therefore characterize surface roughness as a stationary single-scale process, which a 1-D technique typically cannot do. Sea ice surfaces are generally found to have strongly anisotropic correlation lengths, indicating that microwave scattering models for sea ice should include surface spectra that vary as a function of the azimuthal angle of incident radiation. However, our results demonstrate that there is no fundamental relationship between the rms height and correlation length for sea ice surfaces if the sampling area is above a threshold minimum size.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.905
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations49
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote SensingSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207