Resolving Fine-Scale Surface Features on Polar Sea Ice: A First Assessment of UAS Photogrammetry Without Ground Control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mapping landfast sea ice at a fine spatial scale is not only meaningful for geophysical study, but is also of benefit for providing information about human activities upon it. The combination of unmanned aerial systems (UAS) with structure from motion (SfM) methods have already revolutionized the current close-range Earth observation paradigm. To test their feasibility in characterizing the properties and dynamics of fast ice, three flights were carried out in the 2016–2017 austral summer during the 33rd Chinese National Antarctic Expedition (CHINARE), focusing on the area of the Prydz Bay in East Antarctica. Three-dimensional models and orthomosaics from three sorties were constructed from a total of 205 photos using Agisoft PhotoScan software. Logistical challenges presented by the terrain precluded the deployment of a dedicated ground control network; however, it was still possible to indirectly assess the performance of the photogrammetric products through an analysis of the statistics of the matching network, bundle adjustment, and Monte-Carlo simulation. Our results show that the matching networks are quite strong, given a sufficient number of feature points (mostly > 20,000) or valid matches (mostly > 1000). The largest contribution to the total error using our direct georeferencing approach is attributed to inaccuracies in the onboard position and orientation system (POS) records, especially in the vehicle height and yaw angle. On one hand, the 3D precision map reveals that planimetric precision is usually about one-third of the vertical estimate (typically 20 cm in the network centre). On the other hand, shape-only errors account for less than 5% for the X and Y dimensions and 20% for the Z dimension. To further illustrate the UAS’s capability, six representative surface features are selected and interpreted by sea ice experts. Finally, we offer pragmatic suggestions and guidelines for planning future UAS-SfM surveys without the use of ground control. The work represents a pioneering attempt to comprehensively assess UAS-SfM survey capability in fast ice environments, and could serve as a reference for future improvements.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".