MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152299995 · doi:10.5589/m10-008

MAGIC: MAp-Guided Ice Classification System

2010· article· en· W2152299995 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
David A. Clausi, A. K. Qin, Md. Shahnur Azad Chowdhury, Peter Yu, Philippe Maillard

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Remote Sensing · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPolygon (computer graphics)Sea iceMAGIC (telescope)SegmentationRemote sensingComputer scienceSynthetic aperture radarPixelGeologyGeographyArtificial intelligenceCartographyComputer visionComputer graphics (images)MeteorologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A MAp-Guided Ice Classification (MAGIC) system is described and demonstrated. MAGIC is designed specifically to read and interpret synthetic aperture radar (SAR) sea ice images using associated ice maps as provided by the Canadian Ice Service (CIS). An ice chart is manually created at the CIS based on the corresponding SAR image and other ancillary data to provide ice concentrations, types, and floe sizes within enclosed "polygon" regions. MAGIC uses such information as input and then generates a sensor resolution (pixel-based) ice map for each polygon, a product not feasibly produced manually. The primary feature of the current MAGIC version 1.0 is its segmentation module, which is evaluated successfully on a number of images. MAGIC is designed to be used not only as a specific tool for sea ice interpretation but also as a general platform for interpreting generic digital imagery using implemented fundamental and advanced algorithms.

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 score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.972

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations60
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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