MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4237348302 · doi:10.5194/tcd-8-805-2014

Sea ice melt pond fraction estimation from dual-polarisation C-band SAR – Part 1: In situ observations

2014· preprint· en· W4237348302 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Randall K. Scharien, Jack Landy, David G. Barber

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMelt pondSea iceSea ice thicknessFetchArcticArctic ice packSurface roughnessSynthetic aperture radarEnvironmental scienceGeologyBackscatter (email)Remote sensingAtmospheric sciencesClimatologyOceanographyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. An understanding of the evolution of melt ponds on Arctic sea ice is important for climate model parameterizations, weather forecast models, and process studies involving mass, energy and biogeochemical exchanges across the ocean-sea ice–atmosphere interface. A field campaign was conducted on landfast first-year sea ice in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago during the summer of 2012, to examine the potential for estimating melt pond fraction from C-band synthetic aperture radar (SAR). In this study, in situ dual-polarisation radar scatterometer observations of pond covered ice are combined with surface physical measurements to analyse the effects of radar and surface parameters on backscatter. LiDAR measurements of ice surface roughness and ultrasonic wind-wave height profiles of melt ponds are used to quantify the sea ice surface rms-height. Variables contributing to the roughness of wind-generated melt pond surface waves within the fetch-limited pond environment are evaluated, and we show that pond roughness and backscatter cannot be explained by wind speed alone. The utility of the VV / HH polarisation ratio (PR) for retrieving melt pond properties including pond fraction, due to the dielectric contrast between free surface water and sea ice, is demonstrated and explained using Bragg scattering theory. Finally, the PR approach is discussed in the context of retrievals from satellite C-, L-, and P-band dual-polarisation SAR.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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