MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2323963412 · doi:10.3189/2015aog69a717

Sea-ice surface roughness estimates from airborne laser scanner and laser altimeter observations in Fram Strait and north of Svalbard

2015· article· en· W2323963412 on OpenAlexafffund
Justin Beckers, Angelika H. H. Renner, Gunnar Spreen, Sebastian Gerland, Christian Haas

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Glaciology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersFramsenteretNorsk PolarinstituttUniversity of AlbertaAlberta InnovatesNorges ForskningsrådBrigham Young University
KeywordsGeologyAltimeterSurface roughnessSea ice thicknessSurface finishElevation (ballistics)ArcticSea iceArctic ice packRemote sensingClimatologyGeodesyGeomorphologyOceanographyGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We present sea-ice surface roughness estimates, i.e. the standard deviation of relative surface elevation, in the Arctic regions of Fram Strait and the Nansen Basin north of Svalbard acquired by an airborne laser scanner and a single-beam laser altimeter in 2010. We compare the scanner to the altimeter and compare the differences between the two survey regions. We estimate and correct sensor roll from the scanner data using the hyperbolic response of the scanner over a flat surface. Measurement surveys had to be longer than 5 km north of Svalbard and longer than 15 km in Fram Strait before the statistical distribution in surface roughness from the scanner and altimeter became similar. The shape of the surface roughness probability distributions agrees with those of airborne electromagnetic induction measurements of ice thickness. The ice in Fram Strait had a greater mean surface roughness, 0.16 m vs 0.09 m, and a wider distribution in roughness values than the ice in the Nansen Basin. An increase in surface roughness with increasing ice thickness was observed over fast ice found in Fram Strait near the coast of Greenland but not for the drift ice.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 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

Citations30
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of GlaciologySame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207