MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794895367 · doi:10.1002/2017gl075547

Winter Sentinel‐1 Backscatter as a Predictor of Spring Arctic Sea Ice Melt Pond Fraction

2017· article· en· W2794895367 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Randall K. Scharien, Rebecca A. Segal, Sasha Nasonova, Vishnu Nandan, Stephen Howell, Christian Haas

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Victoria
FundersEuropean Space AgencyNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMarine Environmental Observation Prediction and Response Network
KeywordsMelt pondArcticSea iceEnvironmental scienceArchipelagoArctic ice packBackscatter (email)OceanographySatelliteClimatologyThe arcticGeologyRemote sensingSea ice thickness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Spring melt pond fraction ( f p ) has been shown to influence September sea ice extent and, with a growing need to improve melt pond physics in climate and forecast models, observations at large spatial scales are needed. We present a novel technique for estimating f p on sea ice at high spatial resolution from the Sentinel‐1 satellite during the winter period leading up to spring melt. A strong correlation ( r = −0.85) is found between winter radar backscatter and f p from first‐year and multiyear sea ice data collected in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago (CAA) in 2015. Observations made in the CAA in 2016 are used to validate a f p retrieval algorithm, and a f p prediction for the CAA in 2017 is made. The method is effective using the horizontal transmit and receive polarization channel only and shows promise for providing seasonal, pan‐Arctic, f p maps for improved understanding of melt pond distributions and forecast model skill.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations31
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207