MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386874403 · doi:10.5194/tc-17-4063-2023

GLAcier Feature Tracking testkit (GLAFT): a statistically and physically based framework for evaluating glacier velocity products derived from optical satellite image feature tracking

2023· article· en· W4386874403 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Whyjay Zheng, Shashank Bhushan, Maximillian Van Wyk de Vries, William Kochtitzky, David Shean, Luke Copland, Christine F. Dow, Renette Jones‐Ivey, Fernando Pérez

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œcryosphere · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNuclear Safety and Security CommissionUniversity of OttawaCanada Foundation for InnovationOntario Research FoundationCanada Research ChairsNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationParks CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsGlacierFeature (linguistics)Ground truthTracking (education)Remote sensingSatelliteWorkflowMetric (unit)GeologySoftwareComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceGeomorphologyPhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Glacier velocity measurements are essential to understand ice flow mechanics, monitor natural hazards, and make accurate projections of future sea-level rise. Despite these important applications, the method most commonly used to derive glacier velocity maps, feature tracking, relies on empirical parameter choices that rarely account for glacier physics or uncertainty. Here we test two statistics- and physics-based metrics to evaluate velocity maps derived from optical satellite images of Kaskawulsh Glacier, Yukon, Canada, using a range of existing feature-tracking workflows. Based on inter-comparisons with ground truth data, velocity maps with metrics falling within our recommended ranges contain fewer erroneous measurements and more spatially correlated noise than velocity maps with metrics that deviate from those ranges. Thus, these metric ranges are suitable for refining feature-tracking workflows and evaluating the resulting velocity products. We have released an open-source software package for computing and visualizing these metrics, the GLAcier Feature Tracking testkit (GLAFT).

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations12
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œcryosphereSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207