MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4200339676 · doi:10.5194/tc-2021-223-ac1

Reply on RC1

2021· peer-review· en· W4200339676 on OpenAlexaffabout
Stephen Howell

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepeer-review
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSea iceArcticSynthetic aperture radarRemote sensingClimatologyConstellationSpan (engineering)Scale (ratio)GeologyMeteorologyGeographyOceanographyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. As Arctic sea ice extent continues to decline, remote sensing observations are becoming even more vital for the monitoring and understanding of sea ice. Recently, the sea ice community has entered a new era of synthetic aperture radar (SAR) satellites operating at C-band with the launch of Sentinel-1A in 2014 and Sentinel-1B (S1) in 2016 and the RADARSAT Constellation Mission (RCM) in 2019. These missions represent five spaceborne SAR sensors that together routinely cover the pan-Arctic sea ice domain. Here, we describe, apply, and validate the Environment and Climate Change Canada automated sea ice tracking system (ECCC-ASITS) that routinely generates large-scale sea ice motion (SIM) over the pan-Arctic domain using SAR images from S1 and RCM. We applied the ECCC-ASITS to the incoming image streams of S1 and RCM from March 2020 to October 2021 using a total of 135 471 SAR images and generated new SIM datasets (7 d 25 km and 3 d 6.25 km) by combining the image stream outputs of S1 and RCM (S1 + RCM). Results indicate that S1 + RCM SIM provides more coverage in the Hudson Bay, Davis Strait, Beaufort Sea, Bering Sea, and directly over the North Pole compared to SIM from S1 alone. Based on the resolvable S1 + RCM SIM grid cells, the 7 d 25 km spatiotemporal scale is able to provide the most complete picture of SIM across the pan-Arctic from SAR imagery alone, but considerable spatiotemporal coverage is also available from 3 d 6.25 SIM products. S1 + RCM SIM is resolved within the narrow channels and inlets of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, filling a major gap from coarser-resolution sensors. Validating the ECCC-ASITS using S1 and RCM imagery against buoys indicates a root-mean-square error (RMSE) of 2.78 km for dry ice conditions and 3.43 km for melt season conditions. Higher speeds are more apparent with S1 + RCM SIM as comparison with the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) SIM product and the Ocean and Sea Ice Satellite Application Facility (OSI SAF) SIM product indicated an RMSE of u=4.6 km d−1 and v=4.7 km d−1 for the NSIDC and u=3.9 km d−1 and v=3.9 km d−1 for OSI SAF. Overall, our results demonstrate the robustness of the ECCC-ASITS for routinely generating large-scale SIM entirely from SAR imagery across the pan-Arctic domain.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.304
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0150.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.3040.214

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.230 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics→French-language works237,207→