MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3178038329 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu21-15637

A Comparison of Machine Learning Algorithms for the Segmentation and Classification of Snow Micro Penetrometer Profiles on Arctic Sea Ice

2021· article· en· W3178038329 on OpenAlexaff
Julia Kaltenborn, Viviane Clay, Amy R. Macfarlane, Joshua King, Martin Schneebeli

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnowArtificial intelligenceMachine learningAlgorithmArcticCluster analysisSegmentationComputer sciencePenetrometerSea iceGeologyMeteorologyClimatologyGeographyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Snow-layer classification is an essential diagnostic task for a wide variety of cryospheric science and climate research applications. Traditionally, these measurements are made in snow pits, requiring trained operators and a substantial time commitment. The SnowMicroPen (SMP), a portable high-resolution snow penetrometer, has been demonstrated as a capable tool for rapid snow grain classification and layer type segmentation through statistical inversion of its mechanical signal. The manual classification of the SMP profiles requires time and training and becomes infeasible for large datasets. Here, we introduce a novel set of SMP measurements collected during the MOSAiC expedition and apply Machine Learning (ML) algorithms to automatically classify and segment SMP profiles of snow on Arctic sea ice. To this end, different supervised and unsupervised ML methods, including Random Forests, Support Vector Machines, Artificial Neural Networks, and k-means Clustering, are compared. A subsequent segmentation of the classified data results in distinct layers and snow grain markers for the SMP profiles. The models are trained with the dataset by King et al. (2020) and the MOSAiC SMP dataset. The MOSAiC dataset is a unique and extensive dataset characterizing seasonal and spatial variation of snow on the central Arctic sea-ice. We will test and compare the different algorithms and evaluate the algorithms’ effectiveness based on the need for initial dataset labeling, execution speed, and ease of implementation. In particular, we will compare supervised to unsupervised methods, which are distinguished by their need for labeled training data. The implementation of different ML algorithms for SMP profile classification could provide a fast and automatic grain type classification and snow layer segmentation. Based on the gained knowledge from the algorithms’ comparison, a tool can be built to provide scientists from different fields with an immediate SMP profile classification and segmentation. King, J., Howell, S., Brady, M., Toose, P., Derksen, C., Haas, C., & Beckers, J. (2020). Local-scale variability of snow density on Arctic sea ice. The Cryosphere, 14(12), 4323-4339, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-14-4323-2020.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCryospheric studies and observations→French-language works237,207→