MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089140064 · doi:10.1175/jtech-d-12-00190.1

Automated Discrimination of Certain Brightness Fronts in RADARSAT-2 Images of the Ocean Surface

2013· article· en· W2089140064 on OpenAlexaff
Chris T. Jones, Todd D. Sikora, P.W. Vachon, John Wolfe, Brendan DeTracey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans CanadaBedford Institute of OceanographyDefence Research and Development CanadaDalhousie University
FundersNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsSynthetic aperture radarRemote sensingGeologyBrightnessModerate-resolution imaging spectroradiometerSatellitePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Automated classification of the signatures of atmospheric and oceanic processes in synthetic aperture radar (SAR) images of the ocean surface has been a difficult problem, partly because different processes can produce signatures that are very similar in appearance. For example, brightness fronts that are the signatures of horizontal wind shear caused by atmospheric processes that occur independently of properties of the ocean (WIN herein) often appear very similar to brightness fronts that are signatures of sea surface temperature (SST) fronts (SST herein). Using Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS)-derived SST for validation, 302 SAR SST and 193 SAR WIN signatures were collected from over 250 RADARSAT-2 images of the Gulf Stream region using a Canny edge detector. A vector consisting of textural and contextual features was extracted from each signature and used to train and test logistic regression, maximum likelihood, and binary tree classifiers. Following methods proven effective in the analysis of SAR images of sea ice, textural features included those computed from the gray-level co-occurrence matrix for regions along and astride each signature. Contextual features consisted of summaries of the wind vector field near each signature. Results indicate that signatures labeled SST can be automatically discriminated from signatures labeled WIN using the mean wind direction with respect to a brightness front with an accuracy of between 80% and 90%.

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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.332

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Citations11
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Atmospheric and Oceanic TechnologySame topicOceanographic and Atmospheric ProcessesFrench-language works237,207