MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3129937346 · doi:10.3390/rs13040768

Tenuous Correlation between Snow Depth or Sea Ice Thickness and C- or X-Band Backscattering in Nunavik Fjords of the Hudson Strait

2021· article· en· W3129937346 on OpenAlexafffund
Sophie Dufour-Beauséjour, Monique Bernier, Jérome Simon, Saeid Homayouni, Véronique Gilbert, Yves Gauthier, Juupi Tuniq, Anna Wendleder, Achim Roth

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsKativik Regional GovernmentUniversité LavalHydro-QuébecInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
FundersPolar Knowledge Canada
KeywordsFjordSnowSea iceGeologyBackscatter (email)C bandFirnPolarimetryRemote sensingOceanographyEnvironmental scienceGeomorphologyScatteringOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Radar penetration in brine-wetted snow-covered sea ice is almost nil, yet reports exist of a correlation between snow depth or ice thickness and SAR parameters. This article presents a description of snow depth and first-year sea ice thickness distributions in three fjords of the Hudson Strait and of their tenuous correlation with SAR backscattering in the C- and X-band. Snow depth and ice thickness were directly measured in three fjords of the Hudson Strait from 2015 to 2018 in April or May. Bayesian linear regression analysis was used to investigate their relationship with RADARSAT-2 (C-band) or TerraSAR-X (X-band). Polarimetric ratios and the Cloude–Pottier decomposition parameters were explored along with the HH, HV and VV bands. Linear correlations were generally no higher than 0.3 except for a special case in May 2018. The co-polarization ratio did not perform better than the backscattering coefficients.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.208
Threshold uncertainty score0.413

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207