Assessing the Performance of Methods for Monitoring Ice Phenology of the World’s Largest High Arctic Lake Using High-Density Time Series Analysis of Sentinel-1 Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lake ice is a dominant component of Canada’s landscape and can act as an indicator for how freshwater aquatic ecosystems are changing with warming climates. While lake ice monitoring through government networks has decreased in the last three decades, the increased availability of remote sensing images can help to provide consistent spatial and temporal coverage for areas with annual ice cover. Synthetic aperture radar (SAR) data are commonly used for lake ice monitoring, due to the acquisition of images in any condition (time of day or weather). Using Sentinel-1 A/B images, a high-density time series of SAR images was developed for Lake Hazen in Nunavut, Canada, from 2015–2018. These images were used to test two different methods of monitoring lake ice phenology: one method using the first difference between SAR images and another that applies the Otsu segmentation method. Ice phenology dates determined from the two methods were compared with visual interpretation of the Sentinel-1 images. Mean errors for the pixel comparison of the first difference method ranged 3–10 days for ice-on and ice-off, while average error values for the Otsu method ranged 2–10 days. Mean errors for comparisons of different sections of the lake ranged 0–15 days for the first difference method and 2–17 days for the Otsu method. This research demonstrates the value of temporally consistent image acquisition for improving the accuracy of lake ice monitoring.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".