MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Breaking the ice: Video segmentation for close-range ice-covered waters

2025· article· en· W4412738914 on OpenAlexafffund
Corwin Grant Jeon MacMillan, K. Andrea Scott, Matthew Garvin, Zhao Pan

Bibliographic record

VenueOcean Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Research Council CanadaUniversity of WaterlooNational Research Council
KeywordsGeologySea iceRange (aeronautics)OceanographySegmentationArctic ice packIce wedgeRemote sensingComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceEngineeringAerospace engineeringPermafrost

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rapid ice recession in the Arctic Ocean, with predictions of ice-free summers by 2060, opens new maritime routes but requires reliable navigation solutions. Current approaches rely heavily on subjective expert judgment, underscoring the need for automated, data-driven solutions. This study leverages machine learning to assess ice conditions using ship-borne optical data, and introduces a semi-manual, region-based annotation technique to alleviate the high cost of manual annotation for close-range shipborne ice data. The resulting dataset was used to train and evaluate the proposed video segmentation model, UPerFlow, which advances the SegFlow architecture by incorporating a six-channel ResNet encoder, separate UPerNet-based segmentation decoders for each image, PWCNet as the optical flow encoder, and cross-connections that integrate bi-directional flow features without loss of latent information. The proposed architecture outperforms baseline image segmentation networks by an average 38 % in occluded regions, demonstrating the robustness of video segmentation in addressing challenging Arctic conditions.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.311
Threshold uncertainty score0.300

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOcean EngineeringSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207