MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399976524 · doi:10.3390/rs16132301

IceGCN: An Interactive Sea Ice Classification Pipeline for SAR Imagery Based on Graph Convolutional Network

2024· article· en· W4399976524 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mingzhe Jiang, Xinwei Chen, Linlin Xu, David A. Clausi

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceGraphRemote sensingGeologyArtificial intelligenceTheoretical computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Monitoring sea ice in the Arctic region is crucial for polar maritime activities. The Canadian Ice Service (CIS) wants to augment its manual interpretation with machine learning-based approaches due to the increasing data volume received from newly launched synthetic aperture radar (SAR) satellites. However, fully supervised machine learning models require large training datasets, which are usually limited in the sea ice classification field. To address this issue, we propose a semi-supervised interactive system to classify sea ice in dual-pol RADARSAT-2 imagery using limited training samples. First, the SAR image is oversegmented into homogeneous regions. Then, a graph is constructed based on the segmentation results, and the feature set of each node is characterized by a convolutional neural network. Finally, a graph convolutional network (GCN) is employed to classify the whole graph using limited labeled nodes automatically. The proposed method is evaluated on a published dataset. Compared with referenced algorithms, this new method outperforms in both qualitative and quantitative aspects.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.234 · 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
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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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