MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2712308819

CryoSat-2 Validation using CryoVEX 2011-12 Airborne Campaigns

2012· article· en· W2712308819 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Henriette Skourup, R. Forsberg, Stine Kildegaard Rose, A. V. Olesen, I. Einarsson, Veit Helm, Robert Ricker, Stefan Hendricks, Malcolm Davidson, Tânia Casal

Bibliographic record

VenueESA Living Planet Symposium · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceRemote sensingComputer scienceGeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After the successful launch of CryoSat-2 in April 2010, ESA has funded two validation campaigns (CryoSat Validation Experiment, CryoVEx) of the satellite in the Arctic regions in the spring of 2011 and 2012. The primary aim of the CryoVEx campaigns is to directly validate the measurements from CryoSat-2 by comparison to airborne and ground measurements. This is possible only through a major effort involving a large group of international partners. DTU Space has been involved in the CryoVEx campaigns with airborne activities since 2003. To validate the performance of the CryoSat-2 radar altimeter (SIRAL), the aircraft is equipped with an airborne version of the SIRAL altimeter (ASIRAS) together with a laser scanner. The campaigns are focused on five main validation sites: Devon ice cap (Canada), Austfonna ice cap (Svalbard), the EGIG line crossing the Greenland Ice Sheet, as well as the sea ice north of Alert and sea ice around Svalbard in the Fram Strait. Selected tracks were planned to match CryoSat-2 passes and a few of them were flown in formation flight with the Alfred Wegener Institute (AWI) Polar-5 carrying an EM-bird. This presentation summarizes the 2011-12 airborne campaigns in the Arctic region, and includes results of coincident CryoSat-2 (level 1b and 2) and airborne measurements.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.201 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueESA Living Planet SymposiumSame topicMeteorological Phenomena and SimulationsFrench-language works237,207