MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391385262 · doi:10.3390/rs16030546

Lake Ice Thickness Retrieval Method with ICESat-2-Assisted CyroSat-2 Echo Peak Selection

2024· article· en· W4391385262 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Hao Ye, Guowang Jin, Hongmin Zhang, Xin Xiong, Jiahao Li, Jiajun Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaGovernment of CanadaNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsRemote sensingEcho (communications protocol)GeologyEnvironmental scienceGeodesyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lake ice thickness (LIT) is one of the key climate variables in the lake ice domain, but there are currently large uncertainties in the retrieval of LIT. We present and validate a new LIT retrieval method that utilizes ICESat-2 data to assist CryoSat-2 echo peak selection, aiming to improve the accuracy of LIT retrieval and enable data acquisition without on-site measurements. The method involves screening out similar ICESat-2 and CryoSat-2 tracks based on time and space constraints. It also involves dynamically adjusting the range constraint window of CryoSat-2 waveforms based on the high-precision lake ice surface ellipsoid height obtained from ICESat-2/ATL06 data. Within this range constraint window, the peak selection strategy is used to determine the scattering interfaces between snow-ice and ice-water. By utilizing the distance between the scattering horizons, the thickness of the lake ice can be determined. We performed the ice thickness retrieval experiment for Baker Lake in winter and verified it against the on-site measurement data. The results showed that the accuracy was about 0.143 m. At the same time, we performed the ice thickness retrieval experiment for Great Bear Lake (GBL), which does not have on-site measurement data, and compared it with the climate change trend of GBL. The results showed that the retrieval results were consistent with the climate change trend of GBL, confirming the validity of the proposed method.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207