MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2913379186 · doi:10.1109/lgrs.2019.2892896

Icebergs in Sea Ice With TanDEM-X Interferometry

2019· article· en· W2913379186 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Igor Zakharov, Thomas Puestow, Desmond Power, Mark Howell

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Geological SurveyCanadian Space AgencyDeutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt
KeywordsInterferometric synthetic aperture radarIcebergRemote sensingSynthetic aperture radarSea iceGeologyDigital elevation modelInterferometryGeodesySea ice concentrationArcticElevation (ballistics)Arctic ice packSea ice thicknessOceanographyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, the advantages of using an interferometric method for detecting and characterizing icebergs in sea ice were demonstrated. Iceberg topography was analyzed using single-pass TanDEM-X interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR) data. Multiple InSAR data sets in bistatic mode were acquired over icebergs in sea ice in the Arctic region. InSAR processing was used to extract 3-D elevation information of the sea ice surface. The results firmly demonstrate the capability of TanDEM-X data to characterize the shape of icebergs. Very high resolution (VHR) optical satellite data were collected by Pleiades 1A over the same area to derive digital elevation models (DEMs) of ice features for validation. The accuracy of the extracted topography over icebergs was evaluated by comparing InSAR and optical DEMs. The quantitative comparison demonstrated good correspondence between InSAR and optical DEMs with root-mean-square value values of 2.2 m for icebergs and 0.6 m for sea ice, respectively. Using DEMs derived from VHR optical imagery, it was possible to calculate receiver operating characteristics (ROC) for detecting icebergs in sea using InSAR. The resulting ROC analysis illustrates a good detection performance.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.170
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing LettersSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207