MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3032682560 · doi:10.5194/tc-14-1595-2020

Combining TerraSAR-X and time-lapse photography for seasonal sea ice monitoring: the case of Deception Bay, Nunavik

2020· article· en· W3032682560 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sophie Dufour-Beauséjour, Anna Wendleder, Yves Gauthier, Monique Bernier, Jimmy Poulin, Véronique Gilbert, Juupi Tuniq, Amélie Rouleau, Achim Roth

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œcryosphere · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsGlencore (Canada)Kativik Regional GovernmentUniversité LavalCenter for Northern StudiesInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaW. Garfield Weston FoundationNatural Resources CanadaMinistère des TransportsInstitut national de la recherche scientifiquePolar Knowledge Canada
KeywordsBaySea iceOceanographyBreakupClimatologySeries (stratigraphy)GeologyEnvironmental scienceGeographyPhysical geographyRemote sensingMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. This article presents a case study for the combined use of TerraSAR-X and time-lapse photography time series in order to monitor seasonal sea ice processes in Nunavik's Deception Bay. This area is at the confluence of land use by local Inuit, ice-breaking transport by the mining industry, and climate change. Indeed, Inuit have reported greater interannual variability in seasonal sea ice conditions, including later freeze-up and earlier breakup. Time series covering 2015 to 2018 were acquired for each data source: TerraSAR-X images were acquired every 11 d, and photographs were acquired hourly during the day. We used the combination of the two time series to document spatiotemporal aspects of freeze-up and breakup processes. We also report new X-band backscattering values over newly formed sea ice types. The TerraSAR-X time series further show potential for melt and pond onset.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.689
Threshold uncertainty score0.508

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œcryosphereSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207