Determination of Arctic melt pond fraction and sea ice roughness from Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) imagery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Melt ponds on Arctic sea ice are of great significance in the study of the heat balance in the ocean mixed layer, mass and salt balances of Arctic sea ice, and other aspects of the earth-atmosphere system. During the 7th Chinese National Arctic Research Expedition, aerial photographs were taken from an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle over an ice floe in the Canada Basin. Using threshold discrimination and three-dimensional modeling, we estimated a melt pond fraction of 1.63% and a regionally averaged surface roughness of 0.12 for the study area. In view of the particularly foggy environment of the Arctic, aerial images were defogged using an improved dark channel prior based image defog algorithm, especially adapted for the special conditions of sea ice images. An aerial photo mosaic was generated, melt ponds were identified from the mosaic image and melt pond fractions were calculated. Three-dimensional modeling techniques were used to generate a digital elevation model allowing relative elevation and roughness of the sea ice surface to be estimated. Analysis of the relationship between the distributions of melt ponds and sea ice surface roughness shows that melt ponds are smaller on sea ice with higher surface roughness, while broader or deeper melt ponds usually occur in areas where sea ice surface roughness is lower.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".