MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007061445 · doi:10.1080/01431160701874595

Snow depth estimation over north‐western Indian Himalaya using AMSR‐E

2008· article· en· W2007061445 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
I. Das, R. N. Sarwade

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Remote Sensing · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnowBrightness temperatureTerrainRadiometerRemote sensingSnow coverEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyGeologyPhysical geographyBrightnessClimatologyGeographyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper presents the estimation of snow depth over north‐western Indian Himalaya using the 18.7H and 36.5H GHz channels of Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer‐EOS (AMSR‐E). The Microwave Emission Model of Layered Snowpacks (MEMLS) was used along with AMSR‐E to understand the difference in the snow pack emitted and sensor received signals due to the prevailing topography. The study shows that the brightness temperature of AMSR‐E and MEMLS are comparable at 18.7 GHz with some differences in their values at 36.5 GHz showing the sensitivity of this channel to the prevailing topography. Three years of AMSR‐E data were used to modify the 1.59 algorithm to suit the terrain and snow conditions of the north‐western Indian Himalayas. The retrieved snow depth is then compared with ground observations. Data from December to February 2003–2006 were used for the study of snow depths less than 1 m. The modified algorithm estimates the snow depth better than the old algorithm over the mountainous terrains of the north‐western Himalayas. Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge Dr C. Matzler, University of Bern, Switzerland, for kindly providing us with the MEMLS model and for providing help with understanding the model. Thanks are also due to Dr R. Kelly of Waterloo University, Canada, Dr M. Tedesco of GSFC, NASA and Mr N. K. Thakur, SASE, for the helpful discussions and suggestions.

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 score0.434
Threshold uncertainty score0.381

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations28
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Remote SensingSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207