The Impact of Geophysical Corrections on Sea-Ice Freeboard Retrieved from Satellite Altimetry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Satellite altimetry is the only method to monitor global changes in sea-ice thickness and volume over decades. Such missions (e.g., ERS, Envisat, ICESat, CryoSat-2) are based on the conversion of freeboard into thickness by assuming hydrostatic equilibrium. Freeboard, the height of the ice above the water level, is therefore a crucial parameter. Freeboard is a relative quantity, computed by subtracting the instantaneous sea surface height from the sea-ice surface elevations. Hence, the impact of geophysical range corrections depends on the performance of the interpolation between subsequent leads to retrieve the sea surface height, and the magnitude of the correction. In this study, we investigate this impact by considering CryoSat-2 sea-ice freeboard retrievals in autumn and spring. Our findings show that major parts of the Arctic are not noticeably affected by the corrections. However, we find areas with very low lead density like the multiyear ice north of Canada, and landfast ice zones, where the impact can be substantial. In March 2015, 7.17% and 2.69% of all valid CryoSat-2 freeboard grid cells are affected by the ocean tides and the inverse barometric correction by more than 1 cm. They represent by far the major contributions among the impacts of the individual corrections.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".