MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028345525 · doi:10.1017/s0373463301001576

Predicting Sea Ice Conditions using Neural Networks

2002· article· en· W2028345525 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ahmed El‐Rabbany, G. Auda, Sameh Abdelazim

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Navigation · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSea iceIce divideArtificial neural networkIcebergComputer scienceAntarctic sea iceEnvironmental scienceCryosphereGeologyMeteorologyClimatologyArtificial intelligenceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Safe and efficient marine navigation in ice-infested waters requires comprehensive and timely information on the sea ice conditions. These include information on the ice concentration and type, ice edge location, icebergs and open leads. The Canadian Ice Service is responsible for providing ice information in Canadian waters, mainly through its daily ice charts. Unfortunately, due to the difference in time between the ice chart production and its use by mariners, the ice information is always out of date. This problem might be overcome by developing a neural network-based system for predicting the ice conditions over time. A supervised neural network is trained to predict the ice conditions at a given location and time using the current ice charts, which are provided by the Canadian Ice Service. The input ice data is mapped to an output vector that gives the predicted ice conditions. The traditional non-modular feed-forward neural network structure failed to map the required function, and hence, was modularized to give better prediction performance. Each neural module was responsible for the prediction of a 5×5 km area, while the ice characteristic of interest was the total concentration.

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 score0.501
Threshold uncertainty score0.627

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations4
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NavigationSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207