Is Radar Phase Information Useful for Sea Ice Detection in the Marginal Ice Zone?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With continuing sea ice reductions in the Arctic, dynamic physical and ecological processes have more active roles compared to the ice-locked, isolated Arctic Ocean of previous decades. To better understand these changes, observations of high-resolution sea ice conditions are needed. Remote sensing is a useful tool for observations in the harsh Arctic environment. For unsupervised ice detection, we demonstrate the promising value of radar phase difference from polarimetric radar measurements in this study, based on full polarimetric complex RADARSAT-2 SAR images in the marginal ice zone. It is demonstrated that the phase difference from co-polarized and cross-polarized synthetic aperture radar (SAR) images show promising capability for high resolution sea ice discrimination from open water. In particular, the phase difference shows superior potential for the detection of frazil ice compared to the traditional methodology based on the radar intensity ratio. The relationship between phase difference and radar incidence angle is also analyzed, as well as the potential influence of high sea state. The new methodology provides an additional tool for ice detection. In order to make the best use of this tool, directions for further studies are discussed for operational ice detection and possible ice classification.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".