MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950426910 · doi:10.1080/07038992.2019.1625759

The Influence of Surface Sediment Presence on Observed Passive Microwave Brightness Temperatures of First-Year Sea Ice during the Summer Melt Period

2019· article· en· W2950426910 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Madison L. Harasyn, Dustin Isleifson, David G. Barber

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Remote Sensing · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrowaveSedimentSea iceSurface roughnessBrightnessEnvironmental scienceBrightness temperatureOceanographyGeologyRemote sensingClimatologyGeomorphologyMaterials scienceOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Knowledge on the influence of sea ice sediment on passive microwave brightness temperatures (TB) is currently limited, leading to potential inaccuracies in derived sea ice concentrations where this ice exists. We propose that sediment may influence TB in two ways: (i) by altering the surface dielectrics, or (ii) by generating differential melt rates across the ice surface, increasing surface roughness. This study will examine the second proposed hypothesis through a multi-platform analysis, combining in-situ passive microwave and unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) data. UAV image analysis shows a negative relationship between surface elevation and sediment concentration. Comparing this with observed TB shows that horizontally polarized emissions are the most sensitive to rougher ice surfaces with 19 and 37 GHz TB decreasing rapidly with increased incidence angle. At a 55° incidence angle, 89 GHz offers the greatest potential for discriminating sea ice surfaces influenced by sediment presence, as TB are greater in both polarizations in comparison with non-sediment-laden ice. Results from this research provide evidence for a relationship between sea ice surface sediment and passive microwave signature, meriting future research in this field.

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 score0.141
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Remote SensingSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207