MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411256249 · doi:10.1016/j.rse.2025.114863

Comparison of snowmelt timing estimates from Sentinel-1 SAR and surface observations in British Columbia, Canada

2025· article· en· W4411256249 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sara E. Darychuk, J. M. Shea, Chris Derksen

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing of Environment · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversity of Northern British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSnowmeltRemote sensingEnvironmental scienceGeologyClimatologyMeteorologySnowGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Snowmelt provides critical water resources that impact ecosystem health and hazard frequency; however, the timing of melt is difficult to infer across large spatial scales. While Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) has been used to detect snowmelt onset, the accuracy of different methodological approaches requires evaluation. We use Sentinel-1 SAR observations to estimate snowmelt timing at automated snow water equivalent (SWE) stations ( n = 52) across British Columbia between 2018 and 2021. The timing of backscatter minima are compared to snowmelt onset estimates derived from continuous SWE and surface air temperature records. First, we develop a manual selection method, which requires SWE and air temperature records, to determine the feasibility of SAR for estimating snowmelt onset. Using this approach, we demonstrate that images with identical viewing geometries (i.e., those from the same orbital track) should be utilized for snowmelt onset estimation with SAR, and that including the timing of local minima, a minimum value over an interval, as potential dates of snowmelt initiation increases accuracy compared to the use of absolute minima alone. Accuracy further increases when snowmelt analysis is constrained to specific timeframes informed by region and topography, with error reduced by greater than 50 % in some study years. After demonstrating the potential accuracy of SAR with manually selected estimates (RMSE = 5.3 d), we develop an automated method that can produce SAR estimates of melt onset that are independent of surface observations. While accuracy was reduced from automated approaches, the mean date of absolute backscatter minima in track-separated SAR time series (both cross and co-polarized images) provided the most accurate automated estimates of snowmelt (RMSE = 11 d). We observed no spatially coherent bias in SAR error which suggests that SAR observations can be used to detect snowmelt onset across large regions.

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)0.002
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote Sensing of EnvironmentSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207