Assessment of radar‐derived snow depth over <scp>A</scp>rctic sea ice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Knowledge of contemporaneous snow depth on Arctic sea ice is important both to constrain the regional climatology and to improve the accuracy of satellite altimeter estimates of sea ice thickness. We assess new data available from the NASA Operation IceBridge snow radar instrument and derive snow depth estimates across the western Arctic ice pack using a novel methodology based on wavelet techniques that define the primary reflecting surfaces within the snow pack. We assign uncertainty to the snow depth estimates based upon both the radar system parameters and sea ice topographic variability. The accuracy of the airborne snow depth estimates are examined via comparison with coincident measurements gathered in situ across a range of ice types in the Beaufort Sea. We discuss the effect of surface morphology on the derivation, and consequently the accuracy, of airborne snow depth estimates. We find that snow depths derived from the airborne snow radar using the wavelet‐based technique are accurate to 1 cm over level ice. Over rougher surfaces including multiyear and ridged ice, the radar system is impacted by ice surface morphology. Across basin scales, we find the snow‐radar‐derived snow depth on first‐year ice is at least ∼60% of the value reported in the snow climatology for the Beaufort Sea, Canada Basin, and parts of the central Arctic, since these regions were previously dominated by multiyear ice during the measurement period of the climatology. Snow on multiyear ice is more consistent with the climatology.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".