MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2897312948 · doi:10.3390/rs10101603

Predicting Melt Pond Fraction on Landfast Snow Covered First Year Sea Ice from Winter C-Band SAR Backscatter Utilizing Linear, Polarimetric and Texture Parameters

2018· article· en· W2897312948 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Saroat Ramjan, Torsten Geldsetzer, Randall K. Scharien, John Yackel

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Space AgencyNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMarine Environmental Observation Prediction and Response Network
KeywordsSnowSea iceBackscatter (email)Synthetic aperture radarPolarimetryLinear regressionMelt pondEnvironmental scienceGeologyProxy (statistics)Remote sensingClimatologyArctic ice packGeomorphologyScatteringSea ice thicknessMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Early-summer melt pond fraction is predicted using late-winter C-band backscatter of snow-covered first-year sea ice. Aerial photographs were acquired during an early-summer 2012 field campaign in Resolute Passage, Nunavut, Canada, on smooth first-year sea ice to estimate the melt pond fraction. RADARSAT-2 Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) data were acquired over the study area in late winter prior to melt onset. Correlations between the melt pond fractions and late-winter linear and polarimetric SAR parameters and texture measures derived from the SAR parameters are utilized to develop multivariate regression models that predict melt pond fractions. The results demonstrate substantial capability of the regression models to predict melt pond fractions for all SAR incidence angle ranges. The combination of the most significant linear, polarimetric and texture parameters provide the best model at far-range incidence angles, with an R 2 of 0.62 and a pond fraction RMSE of 0.09. Near- and mid- range incidence angle models provide R 2 values of 0.57 and 0.61, respectively, with an RMSE of 0.11. The strength of the regression models improves when SAR parameters are combined with texture parameters. These predictions also serve as a proxy to estimate snow thickness distributions during late winter as higher pond fractions evolve from thinner snow cover.

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 score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.115

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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