Inter-comparison of snow depth retrievals over Arctic sea ice fromradar data acquired by Operation IceBridge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Since 2009, the ultra-wideband snow-radar on Operation IceBridge has acquired data in annual campaigns conducted during the Arctic and Antarctic springs. Progressive improvements in radar hardware and data processing methodologies have led to improved data quality for subsequent retrieval of snow depth. Existing retrieval algorithms differ in the way the air-snow and snow-ice interfaces are detected and localized in the radar returns, and in how the system limitations are addressed (e.g., noise, resolution). In 2014, the Snow Thickness On Sea Ice Working Group (STOSIWG) was formed and tasked with investigating how radar data quality affect snow depth retrievals and how retrievals from the various algorithms differ. The goal is to understand the limitations of the estimates and to produce a well-documented, long-term record that can be used for understanding broader changes in the Arctic climate system. Here, we assess five retrieval algorithms by comparisons with field measurements from two ground-based campaigns, including the BRomine Ozone Mercury EXperiment (BROMEX) at Barrow, Alaska and a field program by Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) at Eureka, Nunavut, available climatology and snowfall from ERA-Interim reanalysis. The aim is to examine available algorithms and to use the assessment results to inform the development of future approaches. We present results from these assessments and highlight key considerations for the production of a long-term, calibrated geophysical record of springtime snow thickness over Arctic 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".