MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2319040573 · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2016.2543660

Sea Ice Concentration Estimation During Melt From Dual-Pol SAR Scenes Using Deep Convolutional Neural Networks: A Case Study

2016· article· en· W2319040573 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvolutional neural networkSynthetic aperture radarSea iceGeologyRemote sensingSegmentationSea ice concentrationFeature (linguistics)Artificial intelligenceArctic ice packSatelliteSea ice thicknessComputer scienceClimatology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-resolution ice concentration maps are of great interest for ship navigation and ice hazard forecasting. In this case study, a convolutional neural network (CNN) has been used to estimate ice concentration using synthetic aperture radar (SAR) scenes captured during the melt season. These dual-pol RADARSAT-2 satellite images are used as input, and the ice concentration is the direct output from the CNN. With no feature extraction or segmentation postprocessing, the absolute mean errors of the generated ice concentration maps are less than 10% on average when compared with manual interpretation of the ice state by ice experts. The CNN is demonstrated to produce ice concentration maps with more detail than produced operationally. Reasonable ice concentration estimations are made in melt regions and in regions of low ice concentration.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.797
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.215 · 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