MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386631041 · doi:10.1109/mmm.2023.3293617

Microwaves See Thin Ice: A Review of Ice and Snow Sensing Using Microwave Techniques

2023· review· en· W4386631041 on OpenAlexafffund
Aaryaman Shah, Omid Niksan, Mandeep Chhajer Jain, Keatin Colegrave, Mahmoud Wagih, Mohammad H. Zarifi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Microwave Magazine · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Moisture and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMitacs
KeywordsSnowSnow coverAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceMathematicsComputer scienceMeteorologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ice and snow are a reality that a large percentage of the global population experiences on a regular basis, with more than 31% of the Earth’s landmass[2]experiencing seasonal snow and ice accretion (as shown inFigure 1, a satellite image of the global snow cover for February 2022)[1]. In the United States alone, ice and snow impact 70% of the population, resulting in more than 1,300 annual deaths from icing-related roadway accidents and causing an estimated US$2.3 billion to be spent each year on roadway snow and ice control operations[3]. The infrastructure in regions that receive ice and snow must be specially designed to reliably operate in winter weather conditions, with specific considerations for power grids[4], antenna communication structures, and cable bridges[5]. Expanding marine shipping and industrial operations in arctic regions have increased the need for safe and reliable operation of equipment and ships in atmospheric accretion and salty-icing conditions[6]. Wind turbines with blades rotating at great speeds high up in the air require thorough design considerations for atmospheric ice formation to prevent damage from icing, which can result in substantial power reduction or complete outage[7]. Similarly, ice accretions on flying objects, such as aircraft wings or turbopropellers, are highly critical challenges and have been a focus for sensing and de-icing for decades[8]because of the fatal effects of icing on airplanes[9].

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.004

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations27
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Microwave MagazineSame topicSoil Moisture and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207