MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4220770868 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu22-7013

A comparison of Backscatter Intensity of Icebergs in C- and L-band SAR Imagery

2022· preprint· en· W4220770868 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Laust Færch, Wolfgang Dierking, Anthony P. Doulgeris, Nick Hughes

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSynthetic aperture radarIcebergRemote sensingClutterGeologyBackscatter (email)PixelSea iceConstant false alarm rateSpace-based radarSatelliteL bandRadarRadar imagingGeodesyComputer scienceOceanographyArtificial intelligenceContinuous-wave radarPhysicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Images from satellite Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) systems are widely used for iceberg monitoring. Normally, icebergs are detected in SAR images by utilizing constant false alarm rate (CFAR) filters, which compare each pixel or cluster of pixels against its background and adaptively set a threshold based on several assumptions regarding the statistical distribution of the background clutter. CFAR algorithms are currently being applied on images from the C-band SAR Sentinel-1 and RADARSAT missions by the operational ice services responsible for Canadian and Greenland waters. Previous studies have shown that imagery from wide-swath C-band SAR is unsuitable for detecting icebergs surrounded by sea ice, but other studies have indicated that icebergs in sea ice may be detected in high-resolution L-band SAR images. Additionally, it is well known that L-band SAR is less sensitive to sea surface roughness than C-band SAR. Therefore, a future operational L-band SAR mission is currently being investigated by the European Space Agency (ESA) since it is expected that L-band images are valuable complements to current C-band imagery for iceberg detection in areas with drift ice and in rough windy seas. In this project, we investigate the backscatter intensity contrast between icebergs and their surroundings using ALOS-2 PALSAR-2 (L-band) ScanSAR, and Sentinel-1 (C-band) extra wide swath imagery. The investigations are concentrated on SAR images from two test sites, one in the Labrador Sea, where we – for further analysis - identified 256 icebergs in open water, and another site in the region of Belgica Bank with 1013 icebergs embedded in fast ice. The investigation shows that the two SAR sensors performed similarly for the open water site, with a backscatter intensity contrast between icebergs and the background of 5-6 dB in both the HH and HV band. But for icebergs surrounded by sea ice, the contrast between icebergs and background at both C- and L-band is greatly reduced to around 2 dB for the HH channel and 4-5 dB for the HV channel. By further manually classifying the sea ice types around the icebergs, we show that the backscatter contrast between icebergs and background is similar at C- and L-band for icebergs embedded in smooth sea ice. However, for rough sea ice, the C-band contrast is decreasing, while remaining high at L-band. Our results indicate that L-band data will lead to better performance for detecting icebergs surrounded by sea ice.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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