MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3088073951 · doi:10.1016/j.jglr.2020.08.018

Retrieval of ice/water observations from synthetic aperture radar imagery for use in lake ice data assimilation

2020· article· en· W3088073951 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
K. Andrea Scott, Linlin Xu, Homa Kheyrollah Pour

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Great Lakes Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
FundersEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaCompute Canada
KeywordsRemote sensingSynthetic aperture radarComputer scienceSatellite imageryData assimilationConvolutional neural networkRadarEnvironmental scienceGeologyArtificial intelligenceMeteorologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-resolution lake ice/water observations retrieved from satellite imagery through efficient, automated methods can provide critical information to lake ice forecasting systems. Synthetic aperture radar (SAR) data is well-suited to this purpose due to its high spatial resolution (approximately 50 m). With recent increases in the volume of SAR data available, the development of automated retrieval methods for these data is a priority for operational centres. However, automated retrieval of ice/water data from SAR imagery is difficult, due to ambiguity in ice and open water signatures, both in terms of image tone and in terms of parameterized texture features extracted from these images. Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) can learn features from imagery in an automated manner, and have been found effective in previous studies on sea ice concentration estimation from SAR. In this study the use of CNNs to retrieve ice/water observations from dual-polarized SAR imagery of two of the Laurentian Great Lakes, Lake Erie and Lake Ontario, is investigated. For data assimilation, it is crucial that the retrieved observations are of high quality. To this end, quality control measures based on the uncertainty of the CNN output to eliminate incorrect retrievals are discussed and demonstrated. The quality control measures are found to be effective in both dual-polarized and single-polarized retrievals. The ability of the CNN to downscale the coarse resolution training labels is demonstrated qualitatively.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.127

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.167
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.153 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations16
Published2020
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Great Lakes ResearchSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207