MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4288064518 · doi:10.1109/jstars.2022.3194324

A Meta-Analysis of Sea Ice Monitoring Using Spaceborne Polarimetric SAR: Advances in the Last Decade

2022· article· en· W4288064518 on OpenAlexafffund
Hangyu Lyu, Weimin Huang, Masoud Mahdianpari

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada First Research Excellence FundOcean Frontier Institute
KeywordsSea iceRemote sensingSynthetic aperture radarSea ice concentrationPolarimetrySea ice thicknessGlaciologyGeologyEnvironmental scienceCryosphereOceanographyScattering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sea ice profoundly influences ocean circulation, the polar environment, biology, climate, and commercial activities. The rapidly changing sea ice environment and increased human activities in polar regions drive the demand for sea ice monitoring. Spaceborne synthetic aperture radar (SAR) has been widely adopted for sea ice sensing due to its all-weather, high spatial resolution, and day-and-night imaging capabilities. Previous reviews have addressed sea ice sensing based on various applications and sensors. However, no meta-analysis has been performed to specifically explore spaceborne polarimetric SAR-data-based sea ice sensing. Therefore, this study aims to provide a meta-analysis of spaceborne polarimetric SAR-data-based sea ice sensing by investigating 182 articles published in the last decade. Sea ice sensing applications for retrieving four key geophysical parameters (sea ice types, concentration, thickness, and motion) as well as SAR scattering characteristics analysis for sea ice are included. The review database was created with 15 fields including quantitative and qualitative perspectives, such as SAR frequency, polarization mode, methodology, evaluation metrics, etc. This meta-analysis aims to provide comparisons among different techniques and identify current challenges to determine effective methods for sea ice sensing. Overall, a snapshot of spaceborne polarimetric SAR-data-based sea ice sensing is presented through the meta-analysis, which could benefit researchers for future studies to advance this field.

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)0.001
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 score0.368
Threshold uncertainty score0.328

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.264
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 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

Citations44
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote SensingSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207