MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109772998 · doi:10.1002/2015gl066389

Evaluation of Operation IceBridge quick‐look snow depth estimates on sea ice

2015· article· en· W2109772998 on OpenAlexafffund
Joshua King, Stephen Howell, Chris Derksen, Nick Rutter, Peter Toose, Justin Beckers, Christian Haas, N. T. Kurtz, J. Richter-Menge

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaYork UniversityEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersCanadian Space AgencyCanada Research ChairsNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UKEuropean Space Agency
KeywordsSnowMean squared errorEnvironmental scienceRemote sensingRoot mean squareSea iceGeologyClimatologyGeomorphologyPhysicsMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We evaluate Operation IceBridge (OIB) “quick‐look” snow depth on sea ice retrievals using in situ measurements taken over immobile first‐year ice (FYI) and multiyear ice (MYI) during March of 2014. Good agreement was found over undeformed FYI (−4.5 cm mean bias) with reduced agreement over deformed FYI (−6.6 cm mean bias). Over MYI, the mean bias was −5.7 cm, but 54% of retrievals were discarded by the OIB retrieval process as compared to only 10% over FYI. Footprint scale analysis revealed a root‐mean‐square error (RMSE) of 6.2 cm over undeformed FYI with RMSE of 10.5 cm and 17.5 cm in the more complex deformed FYI and MYI environments. Correlation analysis was used to demonstrate contrasting retrieval uncertainty associated with spatial aggregation and ice surface roughness.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 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

Citations50
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207