MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2608569001 · doi:10.3390/rs9050408

Sea Ice Concentration Estimation during Freeze-Up from SAR Imagery Using a Convolutional Neural Network

2017· article· en· W2608569001 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lei Wang, K. Andrea Scott, David A. Clausi

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvolutional neural networkComputer sciencePixelArtificial intelligencePerceptronSea iceSynthetic aperture radarArtificial neural networkRemote sensingPattern recognition (psychology)Multilayer perceptronBrightnessGeologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, a convolutional neural network (CNN) is used to estimate sea ice concentration using synthetic aperture radar (SAR) scenes acquired during freeze-up in the Gulf of St. Lawrence on the east coast of Canada. The ice concentration estimates from the CNN are compared to those from a neural network (multi-layer perceptron or MLP) that uses hand-crafted features as input and a single layer of hidden nodes. The CNN is found to be less sensitive to pixel level details than the MLP and produces ice concentration that is less noisy and in closer agreement with that from image analysis charts. This is due to the multi-layer (deep) structure of the CNN, which enables abstract image features to be learned. The CNN ice concentration is also compared with ice concentration estimated from passive microwave brightness temperature data using the ARTIST sea ice (ASI) algorithm. The bias and RMS of the difference between the ice concentration from the CNN and that from image analysis charts is reduced as compared to that from either the MLP or ASI algorithm. Additional results demonstrate the impact of varying the input patch size, varying the number of CNN layers, and including the incidence angle as an additional input.

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)0.000
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 score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations105
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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