MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408424033 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu25-4482

Revisiting NASA's Operation IceBridge Snow on Sea Ice Radar Measurements in the Arctic

2025· preprint· en· W4408424033 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Torbjoern Kagel, Lu Zhou

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnowSea iceArcticGeologyClimatologyRadarEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyRemote sensingOceanographyGeographyGeomorphologyEngineeringAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Snow on sea ice plays a critical role in modulating ice mass changes in response to anthropogenic warming, with significant implications for ocean mixed layer processes, the surface energy budget, and marine ecosystems. Most importantly, accurate snow depth measurements are essential for deriving reliable sea ice thickness estimates from all altimetry satellites. Operation IceBridge (OIB), which collected snow depth data using the airborne CReSIS FMCW C/S-band snow radar for a decade, remains a pivotal reference for understanding pan-Arctic snow depth changes and validating remote sensing snow retrievals. Despite its importance, significant concerns persist regarding snow retrieval algorithms from snow radar, particularly around algorithm performance and the representation of snow properties.In this study, we revisit OIB snow depth retrieval algorithms by comparing them with underutilized in-situ snow depth measurements from MagnaProbe surveys conducted near Eureka, Canada, in 2016. To enhance the spatial representation of the in-situ data, we employ Kriging interpolation methods. Additionally, we make use of the co-collected conical laser scanner data. A detailed comparison of retrieval algorithms - focusing on the detection of the air-snow and snow-ice interfaces as well as the derived snow depth - reveals that the Continuous Wavelet Transform (CWT) algorithm performs best for the 2-8 GHz snow radar version, yielding a correlation of R=0.72 over undeformed sea ice. However, the CWT algorithm predominantly detects snow depths within the 80-90% quantile of the in-situ distribution within the radar footprint. This bias is attributed to the air-snow interface being identified as the first rise above the radar noise floor, which typically corresponds to the highest snow elevations within the footprint. Finally, we compare a subset of newly derived snow depth data from OIB including highly-valuable uncertainties with existing datasets, highlighting potential improvements.Looking ahead, we propose a framework to enhance snow depth retrieval algorithms, offering robust pathways for validating and improving satellite-based snow datasets. This approach holds significant promise for advancing the accuracy of snow depth measurements critical to polar science in the future campaigns.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.222

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics→French-language works237,207→