MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979546929 · doi:10.1109/oceanse.2019.8867124

Modeling Scattering Differences between Sea Ice Ridges

2019· article· en· W2979546929 on OpenAlexaff
Pradeep Bobby, Eric W. Gill

Bibliographic record

VenueOCEANS 2019 - Marseille · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRidgeGeologySea icePolarScatteringSea ice thicknessRemote sensingRadarGeophysicsClimatologyArctic ice packOpticsPaleontologyComputer sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sea ice ridges pose some of the greatest threats to navigation in polar and sub-polar regions and it is important to characterize ridges using remote sensing data. First year (FY) ridges and multi-year (MY) ridges may be present in the same region, but MY ridges are stronger and have the potential to cause greater damage to vessels and structures. A new approach has been developed to model electromagnetic (EM) scattering from sea ice ridges. Ridges are represented as having a rough surface over horizontally stratified and isotropic layers. The total scatter from the ridge is the sum of the scatter from the surface and the layers. This paper provides an overview of the modeling process and provides some initial simulation results showing the impacts of radar frequency and ice salinity on the scattered wave. Ice ridge surface and structure characteristics affect the nature of the scattered signal and additional work is required to determine if it is possible to reliably distinguish between ridge types. Future work will involve simulations using more detailed modeling of ice ridge profiles to better determine how radar frequency and ice ridge structure and phenology affect ice discrimination.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.627
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0020.002

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 head0.203
Teacher spread0.189 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOCEANS 2019 - MarseilleSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207