MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2795976264 · doi:10.3390/rs10040575

Surveying Drifting Icebergs and Ice Islands: Deterioration Detection and Mass Estimation with Aerial Photogrammetry and Laser Scanning

2018· article· en· W2795976264 on OpenAlexaff
Anna Crawford, Derek Mueller, Gabriel Joyal

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topic3D Surveying and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIcebergPhotogrammetryRemote sensingGlobal Positioning SystemPoint cloudGeodesyGeologyStructure from motionLaser scanningEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceIce sheetComputer visionLaserMotion estimationOceanographyTelecommunicationsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Icebergs and ice islands (large, tabular icebergs) are challenging targets to survey due to their size, mobility, remote locations, and potentially difficult environmental conditions. Here, we assess the precision and utility of aerial photography surveying with structure-from-motion multi-view stereo photogrammetry processing (SfM) and vessel-based terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) for iceberg deterioration detection and mass estimation. For both techniques, we determine the minimum amount of change required to reliably resolve iceberg deterioration, the deterioration detection threshold (DDT), using triplicate surveys of two iceberg survey targets. We also calculate their relative uncertainties for iceberg mass estimation. The quality of deployed Global Positioning System (GPS) units that were used for drift correction and scale assignment was a major determinant of point cloud precision. When dual-frequency GPS receivers were deployed, DDT values of 2.5 and 0.40 m were calculated for the TLS and SfM point clouds, respectively. In contrast, values of 6.6 and 3.4 m were calculated when tracking beacons with lower-quality GPS were used. The SfM dataset was also more precise when used for iceberg mass estimation, and we recommend further development of this technique for iceberg-related end-uses.

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 score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.600

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.214
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; 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

Citations34
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topic3D Surveying and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207