MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4211206456 · doi:10.1109/access.2022.3150969

Improved Sea-Ice Identification Using Semantic Segmentation With Raindrop Removal

2022· article· en· W4211206456 on OpenAlexafffund
Nahed M. Alsharay, Yuanzhu Chen, Octavia A. Dobre, Oscar De Silva

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersMemorial University of NewfoundlandMitacs
KeywordsSegmentationIdentification (biology)Sea iceComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceImage segmentationRemote sensingGeologyNatural language processingClimatology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sea-ice identification is an essential process for safety critical navigation support of surface vessels in polar waters. Semantic segmentation has drawn much attention as an enabling technique for fast detection of objects in a scene including sea-ice conditions. Identifying sea-ice is a challenging problem, especially in the presence of raindrops. The raindrop alters the boundaries of the objects in the scene, and thus, degrades the identification performance. In this work, a raindrop removing framework is developed to enhance the classification performance. Three deep-learning semantic segmentation networks are trained to classify the scene of sea-ice images into ice, water, ship, and sky. The deep-learning networks are VGG-16, fully convolutional network, and pyramid scene parsing network. Transfer learning along with data augmentation operations have been implemented to improve the training process. Results illustrate that data augmentation operations enhance the performance of the three models. Moreover, the raindrop removing framework improves the models’ performance, e.g. the average intersection over union of the VGG-16 model is improved from 85.91% to 91.70%.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.643
Threshold uncertainty score0.891

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.240 · 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.

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

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207