MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4300544799 · doi:10.5957/icetech-2014-158

The Detection of Multi-Year Ice Using Upward Looking Sonar Data

2014· article· en· W4300544799 on OpenAlexaff
David B. Fissel, Edward Alsworth Ross, Louis Sadova, Alex Slonimer, Dawn Sadowy, Todd Mudge

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsASL Environmental Sciences (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSea iceGeologySonarSea ice thicknessArctic ice packFast iceSea ice concentrationRemote sensingSubmarine pipelineIcebergOceanographyDrift iceMarine engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Upward looking sonar (ULS) instruments on year-long sub-surface moorings are widely used in support of oil and gas exploration programs. The analysis results are used to provide key inputs to the engineering of offshore platform design and ship-based ice management. Detection of the older and harder multi-year sea ice is particularly important for engineering and ice management applications. Here, we analyze multi-year ULS measurements of sea ice in the Beaufort Sea and off Northeast Greenland. The detectability and characterization of multi-year ice is derived from two independent analysis methods. The first method uses the backscattered acoustic pulse shape received by the sonar instrument while the second method involves the degree of the smoothness of the underside of the ice keels away from the leading and trailing edges. Both methods demonstrate skill in detecting multi-year sea ice as distinct from first year sea ice. The two methods are shown to be complementary in that some multiyear ice floes cannot always be clearly categorized by one method alone.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.242
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→