MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2416266554 · doi:10.3390/rs8060480

Automatic Detection of the Ice Edge in SAR Imagery Using Curvelet Transform and Active Contour

2016· article· en· W2416266554 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jiange Liu, K. Andrea Scott, Ahmed Gawish, Paul Fieguth

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersCanadian Space Agency
KeywordsGeologySea iceSynthetic aperture radarRemote sensingInitializationCurveletEdge detectionEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceImage processingImage (mathematics)Wavelet transformOceanographyWavelet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A novel method based on the curvelet transform and active contour method to automatically detect the ice edge in Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) imagery is proposed. The method utilizes the location of high curvelet coefficients to determine regions in the image likely to contain the ice edge. Using an ice edge from passive microwave sea ice concentration for initialization, these regions are then joined using the active contour method to obtain the final ice edge. The method is evaluated on four dual polarization SAR scenes of the Labrador sea. Through comparison of the ice edge with that from image analysis charts, it is demonstrated that the proposed method can detect the ice edge effectively in SAR images. This is particularly relevant when the marginal ice zone is diffuse or the ice is thin, and using the definition of ice edge from the passive microwave ice concentration would underestimate the ice edge location. It is expected that the method may be useful for operations in marginal ice zones, such as offshore drilling, where a high resolution estimate of the ice edge location is required. It could also be useful as a first guess for an ice analyst, or for the assimilation of SAR data.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.403

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations23
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207