Inter-comparison of melt pond products with melt/freeze-up dates and sea ice concentration data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Melt ponds are a dominant feature on the Arctic sea ice surface in summer, occupying up to about 50 – 60% of the sea ice surface during advanced melt. Melt ponds normally begin to form around mid-May in the marginal ice zone and expand northwards as the summer melt season progresses. Once melt ponds emerge, the scattering characteristics of the ice surface changes, dramatically lowering the sea ice albedo. Since 96% of the total annual solar heat into the ocean through sea ice occurs between May and August, the presence of melt ponds plays a significant role in this transfer of solar heat, influencing not only the sea ice energy balance, but also the amount of light available under the sea ice and ocean primary productivity. Given the importance melt ponds play in the coupled Arctic climate-ecosystem, mapping and quantification of melt pond variability on a Pan-Arctic basin scale are needed. Satellite-based observations are the only way to map melt ponds and albedo changes on a pan-Arctic scale. Rösel et al. (2012) utilized a MODIS 8-day average product to map melt ponds on a pan-Arctic scale and over several years. In another approach, melt pond fraction and surface albedo were retrieved based on the physical and optical characteristics of sea ice and melt ponds without a priori information using MERIS.Here, we propose a novel machine learning-based methodology to map Arctic melt ponds from MODIS 500m resolution data. We provide a merging procedure to create the first pan-Arctic melt pond product spanning a 20-year period at a weekly temporal resolution. Specifically, we use MODIS data together with machine learning, including multi-layer neural network and logistic regression to test our ability to map melt ponds from the start to the end of the melt season. Since sea ice reflectance is strongly dependent on the viewing and solar geometry (i.e. sensor and solar zenith and azimuth angles), we attempt to minimize this dependence by using normalized band ratios in the machine learning algorithms. Each melt pond retrieval algorithm is different and validation ways are different as well producing somewhat dissimilar melt pond results. In this study, we inter-compare melt ponds products from different institutes, including university of Hamburg, university of Bremen, and university college London. The melt pond maps are compared with melt onset and freeze-up dates data and sea ice concentration. The melt pond maps are evaluated by melt pond fraction statistics from high resolution satellite (MEDEA) images that have not been used for the evaluation in melt pond products.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".