MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2895882867 · doi:10.3390/rs10101641

Evaluating RADARSAT-2 for the Monitoring of Lake Ice Phenology Events in Mid-Latitudes

2018· article· en· W2895882867 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Justin Murfitt, Laura C. Brown, Stephen Howell

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversity of Toronto
FundersU.S. Geological SurveyCanada Foundation for InnovationNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceLatitudePhenologyClimatologyRemote sensingCryosphereGeologyPhysical geographySea iceGeographyGeodesy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lake ice is an important component in understanding the local climate as changes in temperature have an impact on the timing of key ice phenology events. In recent years, there has been a decline in the in-situ monitoring of lake ice events in Canada and microwave remote sensing imagery from synthetic aperture radar (SAR) is more widely used due to the high spatial resolution and response of backscatter to the freezing and melting of the ice surface. RADARSAT-2 imagery was used to develop a threshold-based method for determining lake ice events for mid-latitude lakes in Central Ontario from 2008 to 2017. Estimated lake ice phenology events are validated with ground-based observations and are compared against the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS band 2). The threshold-based method was found to accurately identify 12 out of 17 freeze events and 13 out of 17 melt events from 2015–2017 when compared to ground-based observations. Mean absolute errors for freeze events ranged from 2.5 to 10.0 days when compared to MODIS imagery while the mean absolute error for water clear of ice (WCI) ranged from 1.5 to 7.1 days. The method is important for the study of mid-latitude lake ice due to its unique success in detecting multiple freeze and melting events throughout the ice season.

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 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 score0.852
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations33
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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