MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011205060 · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2013.2250509

Snow Microwave Emission Modeling of Ice Lenses Within a Snowpack Using the Microwave Emission Model for Layered Snowpacks

2013· article· en· W2011205060 on OpenAlexaffabout
Benoît Montpetit, Alain Royer, Alexandre Roy, Alexandre Langlois, Chris Derksen

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnowpackSnowBrightness temperatureMicrowaveBrightnessEnvironmental scienceRemote sensingAtmospheric sciencesGeologyOpticsMeteorologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ice lens formation, which follows rain on snow events or melt-refreeze cycles in winter and spring, is likely to become more frequent as a result of increasing mean winter temperatures at high latitudes. These ice lenses significantly affect the microwave scattering and emission properties, and hence snow brightness temperatures that are widely used to monitor snow cover properties from space. To understand and interpret the spaceborne microwave signal, the modeling of these phenomena needs improvement. This paper shows the effects and sensitivity of ice lenses on simulated brightness temperatures using the microwave emission model of layered snowpacks coupled to a soil emission model at 19 and 37 GHz in both horizontal and vertical polarizations. Results when considering pure ice lenses show an improvement of 20.5 K of the root mean square error between the simulated and measured brightness temperature (Tb) using several in situ data sets acquired during field campaigns across Canada. The modeled Tbs are found to be highly sensitive to the vertical location of ice lenses within the snowpack.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.451
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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations77
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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