MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159641551 · doi:10.1109/igarss.2010.5654350

Effects of surface roughness on sea ice freeboard retrieval with an Airborne Ku-Band SAR radar altimeter

2010· article· en· W2159641551 on OpenAlexaff
Stefan Hendricks, Lars Stenseng, Veit Helm, Christian Haas

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersDeutsches Zentrum für Luft- und RaumfahrtEuropean Space Agency
KeywordsFreeboardSnowRemote sensingRadar altimeterAltimeterSea iceRadarGeologySea ice thicknessSurface roughnessSynthetic aperture radarRadar imagingArctic ice packSpace-based radarMeteorologyEnvironmental scienceBistatic radarClimatologyGeomorphologyComputer scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Results from two years of the CryoSat Validation Experiment (CryoVEx) over sea ice in the western Arctic Ocean are presented. The estimation of freeboard, the height of sea ice floating above the water level, is one the main goals of the CryoSat-2 mission of the European Space Agency (ESA) in order to investigate sea ice volume changes on an Arctic wide scale. Freeboard retrieval requires precise radar range measurements to the ice surface, therefore we investigate the penetration of the Ku-Band radar waves into the overlying snow cover as well as the effects of sub-footprint-scale surface roughness using airborne radar and laser altimeters. We find regional variable penetration of the radar signal at late spring conditions, where the difference of the radar and the reference laser range measurement never agrees with the expected snow thickness. In addition, a rough surface can lead to biases of the airborne validation dataset, since the radar overestimates the amount of open water and thin ice as well the freeboard of heavy ice deformation zones.

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)0.003
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.196
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 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

Citations42
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207