MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382791918 · doi:10.1080/01431161.2023.2221803

Investigation of the sensitivity response of Touzi target scattering decomposition to modeled early ice growth

2023· article· en· W4382791918 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohammed Dabboor, Mohammed Shokr

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Remote Sensing · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersCanadian Space AgencyEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
KeywordsSea iceScatteringGeologyBaySynthetic aperture radarDecompositionSalinityRemote sensingEnvironmental scienceOpticsOceanographyPhysicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Touzi’s scattering vector model allows for a unified decomposition of both coherent and incoherent target scattering. Based on this model, a unique and roll-invariant model can be developed for target decomposition. Our study aims at the investigation of the Touzi decomposition for lake and sea ice monitoring. Thus, we investigate the sensitivity of the target parameters obtained from the Touzi incoherent decomposition to modeled ice growth. Our study focuses on thermodynamically-grown fast lake and sea ice during the early ice growth. A time-series quad pol synthetic aperture radar (SAR) imagery was acquired over a study site around the Resolute Bay area. Results indicate that for lake ice, the scattering type magnitude (αs) decreases within a thickness up to 20 cm. This means switching from volume scattering to dominant surface scattering. The same sensitivity is observed for young sea ice with thickness up to 30 cm, which corresponds to modeled ice bulk salinity of 8.5‰. Remarkably, we found a trend of increasing target orientation angle (ψ) for thin sea ice up to 20 cm, which corresponds to a bulk salinity of 10.3‰. This trend is unique to the case of 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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.413
Threshold uncertainty score0.214

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.242
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Remote SensingSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207