MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4253842049 · doi:10.3402/tellusa.v67.27218

Assimilation of ice and water observations from SAR imagery to improve estimates of sea ice concentration

2015· article· en· W4253842049 on OpenAlexaff
K. Andrea Scott, Zahra Ashouri, Mark Buehner, Lynn Pogson, Tom Carrières

Bibliographic record

VenueTellus A Dynamic Meteorology and Oceanography · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSea ice concentrationSynthetic aperture radarSea iceRemote sensingSea ice thicknessData assimilationSpecial sensor microwave/imagerGeologyThresholdingBinary numberMeteorologyEnvironmental scienceMicrowaveClimatologyArctic ice packComputer scienceMathematicsArtificial intelligenceImage (mathematics)Geography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, the assimilation of binary observations calculated from synthetic aperture radar (SAR) images of sea ice is investigated. Ice and water observations are obtained from a set of SAR images by thresholding ice and water probabilities calculated using a supervised maximum likelihood estimator (MLE). These ice and water observations are then assimilated in combination with ice concentration from passive microwave imagery for the purpose of estimating sea ice concentration. Due to the fact that the observations are binary, consisting of zeros and ones, while the state vector is a continuous variable (ice concentration), the forward model used to map the state vector to the observation space requires special consideration. Both linear and non-linear forward models were investigated. In both cases, the assimilation of SAR data was able to produce ice concentration analyses in closer agreement with image analysis charts than when assimilating passive microwave data only. When both passive microwave and SAR data are assimilated, the bias between the ice concentration analyses and the ice concentration from ice charts is 19.78%, as compared to 26.72% when only passive microwave data are assimilated. The method presented here for the assimilation of SAR data could be applied to other binary observations, such as ice/water information from visual/infrared sensors.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.272
Threshold uncertainty score0.395

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 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

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTellus A Dynamic Meteorology and OceanographySame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207