MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385723698 · doi:10.5194/gmd-16-4521-2023

Automatic snow type classification of snow micropenetrometer profiles with machine learning algorithms

2023· article· en· W4385723698 on OpenAlexaff
Julia Kaltenborn, Amy R. Macfarlane, Viviane Clay, Martin Schneebeli

Bibliographic record

VenueGeoscientific model development · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute
FundersHorizon 2020Swiss Polar InstituteDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftEuropean CommissionAlfred Wegener Institute Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine ResearchWSL-Institut für Schnee- und Lawinenforschung SLF
KeywordsSnowSnowpackComputer scienceMachine learningArtificial intelligenceIdentification (biology)Artificial neural networkSegmentationAlgorithmData miningGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Snow-layer segmentation and classification are essential diagnostic tasks for various cryospheric applications. The SnowMicroPen (SMP) measures the snowpack's penetration force at submillimeter intervals in snow depth. The resulting depth–force profile can be parameterized for density and specific surface area. However, no information on traditional snow types is currently extracted automatically. The labeling of snow types is a time-intensive task that requires practice and becomes infeasible for large datasets. Previous work showed that automated segmentation and classification is, in theory, possible but cannot be applied to data straight from the field or needs additional time-costly information, such as from classified snow pits. We evaluate how well machine learning models can automatically segment and classify SMP profiles to address this gap. We trained 14 models, among them semi-supervised models and artificial neural networks (ANNs), on the MOSAiC SMP dataset, an extensive collection of snow profiles on Arctic sea ice. SMP profiles can be successfully segmented and classified into snow classes based solely on the SMP's signal. The model comparison provided in this study enables SMP users to choose a suitable model for their task and dataset. The findings presented will facilitate and accelerate snow type identification through SMP profiles. Anyone can access the tools and models needed to automate snow type identification via the software repository “snowdragon”. Overall, snowdragon creates a link between traditional snow classification and high-resolution force–depth profiles. Traditional snow profile observations can be compared to SMP profiles with such a tool.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.594
Threshold uncertainty score0.772

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.185 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeoscientific model developmentSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207