Operational map-guided classification of SAR sea ice imagery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a map-guided sea ice classification system built to work in parallel with the Canadian Ice Service (CIS) operations to produce pixel-based ice maps that complement actual "egg code" maps produced by CIS. The system uses the CIS maps as input to guide classification by providing information on the number of ice types and their final label for specific regions. Segmentation is based on a modified adaptive Markov random field (MRF) model that uses synthetic aperture radar (SAR) intensities and texture features as input. The ice type labeling is performed automatically by gathering evidences based on a priori information on one or two classes and deducing the other labels iteratively by comparing distributions of segments. Three methods for comparing the segment distributions (Fisher criterion, Mahalanobis distance, and Kolmogorov-Smirnov test) were implemented and compared. The system is fully described with special attention to the labeling procedure. Examples are presented in the form of two CIS SAR-based ice maps from the Gulf of Saint Lawrence region and one example from the Beaufort Sea. The results indicate that when the segmentation is good, the labeling attains best results (between 71% and 89%) based on evaluation by a sea ice analyst. Some problems remain to be assessed which are primarily attributable to discrepancies in the information provided by the egg code and what is actually visible in the SAR image. Subscale information on floe size and shape available to human analysts, but not in this classification system, also appear to be a critical information for separating some ice types.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".