MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093975782 · doi:10.5589/m02-022

ERS SAR studies of sea ice signatures in the Pechora Sea and Kara Sea region

2002· article· en· W2093975782 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
M. Lundhaug

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Remote Sensing · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Space Agency
KeywordsSea iceArctic ice packSea ice concentrationArcticOpen waterGeologySynthetic aperture radarSea ice thicknessStandard deviationWind speedClimatologyMeteorologyPhysical geographyOceanographyRemote sensingGeographyMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Results from a statistical analysis of 105 synthetic aperture radar (SAR) images and meteorological data are presented, covering parts of the Pechora Sea and Kara Sea in the Russian Arctic. Wind speed, air temperature, and other data were collected for the SAR sample areas, and a manual sea ice classification of the SAR samples was performed. All variables were input to different multivariate regression analyses, which were used to separate ice and water samples. In subsequent regression analyses the classes young ice and rough first-year ice were separated from water, and the two ice types were separated from one another. In the separation of all ice types from water, correlation coefficients of up to 0.90 were achieved between predicted and actual values. Correlation coefficients were as high as 0.93 between predicted and actual values for open water and young ice and for open water and rough first-year ice. When trying to separate young ice from rough first-year ice, correlation coefficients of about 0.60 were obtained. The study indicated that the mean and standard deviation of the backscattering coefficients and air temperatures were the most important information for separating water and sea ice using regression techniques.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.819
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 designOther design
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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Remote SensingSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207