MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2106872691 · doi:10.1109/crv.2009.25

SEC: Stochastic Ensemble Consensus Approach to Unsupervised SAR Sea-Ice Segmentation

2009· article· en· W2106872691 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alexander Wong, David A. Clausi, Paul Fieguth

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSynthetic aperture radarSea iceMarkov random fieldMixture modelSegmentationArtificial intelligenceComputer sciencePixelRemote sensingCluster analysisImage segmentationPattern recognition (psychology)GeologyClimatology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of synthetic aperture radar (SAR) has become an integral part of sea-ice monitoring and analysis in the polar regions. An important task in sea-ice analysis is to segment SAR sea-ice imagery based on the underlying ice type, which is a challenging task to perform automatically due to various imaging and environmental conditions. A novel stochastic ensemble consensus approach to sea-ice segmentation (SEC) is presented to tackle this challenging task. In SEC, each pixel in the SAR sea-ice image is assigned an initial sub-class based on its tonal characteristics. Ensembles of random samples are generated from a random field representing the SAR sea-ice imagery. The generated ensembles are then used to re-estimate the sub-class of the pixels using a weighted median consensus strategy. Based on the probability distribution of the sub-classes, an expectation maximization (EM) approach is utilized to estimate the final class likelihoods using a Gaussian mixture model (GMM). Finally, maximum likelihood (ML) classification is performed to estimate the final class of each pixel within the SAR sea-ice imagery based on the estimated GMM and the assigned sub-classes. SEC was tested using a variety of operational RADARSAT-1 and RADARSAT-2 SAR sea-ice imagery provided by the Canadian Ice Service (CIS) and was shown to produce successfully segmentation results that were superior to approaches based on K-means clustering, Gamma mixture models, and Markov Random Field (MRF) models for sea-ice segmentation.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics→French-language works237,207→