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 OpenAlexaff
Lei Wang, K. Andrea Scott, Linlin Xu, David A. Clausi

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.016
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

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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations220
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote SensingSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207