MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104348917 · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2005.857896

Analysis of surface roughness and morphology of first-year sea ice melt ponds: implications for microwave scattering

2005· article· en· W2104348917 on OpenAlexaffabout
Randall K. Scharien, John Yackel

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFetchSurface roughnessWind speedMelt pondSynthetic aperture radarGeologySea iceSignificant wave heightAtmospheric sciencesArcticEnvironmental scienceWind waveRemote sensingGeomorphologyClimatologyArctic ice packMaterials scienceSea ice thicknessOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Variations in wind forcing over summer first-year sea ice (FYI) melt ponds occur at hourly to weekly scales and are a significant contributor to microwave backscatter (/spl sigma//spl deg/) variability observed from spaceborne synthetic aperture radar (SAR) platforms (e.g., ENVISAT-ASAR and RADARSAT-1). This variability impairs our ability to use SAR to derive information on summer sea ice thermodynamic state and energy balance parameters such as albedo and melt pond fraction. The surface roughness contribution of FYI melt ponds in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago to like-polarized, C-band /spl sigma//spl deg/ estimates is analyzed through a spectral and statistical analysis of surface wave height profiles for varying wind speeds, upwind fetch lengths, and melt pond depths. A unique derivation of melt pond surface wave height spectra is presented based on digital video of melt pond surface wave trains. Significant scale surface roughness was observed even at wind speeds of 3 m/spl middot/s/sup -1/, resulting in small perturbation model estimates of /spl sigma//spl deg/ (HH) ranging from -5 dB at 20/spl deg/ incidence to -22 dB at 50/spl deg/ incidence. Results from a multivariate linear regression analysis show that 53.5% of observed variance in /spl sigma//spl deg/ (HH or VV) can be explained by wind speed, upwind fetch from melt pond edges, and melt pond depth, with no appreciable difference in the relative contribution of explanatory variables. Modeled omnidirectional /spl sigma//spl deg/ as a function of wind speed and incidence angle for 100-m transects collected throughout the melt pond season act to elaborate the role of fetch and depth, as well as the modulating effect of hummocks, on /spl sigma//spl deg/.

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 score0.886
Threshold uncertainty score0.346

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations47
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote SensingSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207