MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sea Ice Thickness Estimation From TechDemoSat-1 and Soil Moisture Ocean Salinity Data Using Machine Learning Methods

2020· article· en· W3155532278 on OpenAlexafffund
Qingyun Yan, Weimin Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Oceans 2020: Singapore – U.S. Gulf Coast · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSalinitySea iceWater contentSupport vector machineCorrelation coefficientConsistency (knowledge bases)Convolutional neural networkCoefficient of determinationSeawaterEnvironmental scienceRemote sensingSea ice concentrationMean squared errorSea ice thicknessGeologyArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceMachine learningArctic ice packMathematicsClimatologyStatisticsOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, two machine learning methods, specifically, convolutional neural network (CNN) and support vector regression (SVR), are employed for retrieving sea ice thickness (SIT) from TechDemoSat-1 (TDS-1) and Soil Moisture Ocean Salinity (SMOS) data. The input for both methods consists of scattering coefficient (σ°), the incidence angle (θ), sea ice salinity (S) and sea ice temperature (T). The first two variables are derived from the TDS-1 data, and the latter two are from the SMOS data. Evaluation of the proposed methods is based on measurements in 2017 and 2018 of thin sea ice with thickness less than 1 m. Comparisons showed good consistency between the derived and reference SIT, with correlation coefficients of 0.95 and 0.90 and root mean square differences of 5.49 cm and 7.97 cm for SVR and CNN, respectively. This demonstrates the capability of these machine learning-based methods and the utility of TDS-1 data for SIT retrieval.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.892
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Oceans 2020: Singapore – U.S. Gulf CoastSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207