The potential of satellite derived surface state to empirically estimate pan-arctic ground temperature at specific depths and the essential role of in-situ data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surface state information, derived from ASCAT microwave sensors (C-band scatterometer), were empirically linked to in-situ arctic ground temperature measurements. The resulting FT2T-regressionmodel was established using the sum of days of year frozen and in-situ mean annual ground temperatures, both at specific depths and years. Regionally, the model showed the best results in Scandinavia and northern Russia with less than 1°C difference to the in-situ data. Overall, the results were valid for most depths and regions, with a slight tendency for underestimation of the ground temperatures on the Eurasian continent (about -1°C) and an overestimation on the American continent up to 2 °C. The most northern parts of Greenland, the Canadian High Arctic Islands and Alaska, however, showed a high positive bias of more than 10°C. Reasons for this overshooting include the limited amount of measurements in those regions, the oceanic influence and possibly snow cover effects. Due to the inaccessibility of many arctic regions, in-situ data availability is still sparse and if available not harmonized. We used the currently revised annual ground temperature dataset from CCI+ Permafrost, which combines in-situ data from the GTNP-database, RosHydroMet and additional regional arctic ground temperature datasets (e.g. Nordicana). The resulting determination coefficients of the FT2T-model showed 55% explained variance at shallow borehole-depths below 80cm and decrease with depth to around 25% at 20 meters. This suggests that the sum of frozen days of year delivers better result at shallow depths in the active layer than at the actual permafrost table. The RMSE showed a dependency on the spread of measurement stations considered in the model calibration step. The more input regions we could use, the larger the RMSE got due to the increase of variability in the input data. Inevitably, it’s the in-situ information which enables the translation between ground temperatures and microwave backscatter and thus it fundamentally affects the accuracy of the result.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".