MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Performance Evaluation of Three Deep Learning Models for River ICE Segmentation From Aerial Images

2025· article· en· W4413321517 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrological Forecasting Using AI
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSegmentationArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceAerial imageryImage segmentationDeep learningComputer visionAerial imageRemote sensingGeologyImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

River ice monitoring is of great importance due to its impact on various environmental issues. In this study, the performance of three deep learning models, U-Net, MA-FCN, and SegNet, in segmenting UAV images of river ice was compared using the Alberta river ice dataset. The models were evaluated using mean Intersection over Union (mIoU) and Pixel Accuracy (PA). Results showed U-Net achieved the best results with an mIoU of 65.5% and a PA of 88.45%, outperforming MA-FCN and SegNet. U-Net's lightweight design and skip connections preserved spatial information, making it more effective with limited training data. MA-FCN performed slightly weaker than U-Net and SegNet models due to it having more parameters, and SegNet's lack of skip connections led to smoother edges in the final segmentation map.

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.

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)0.001
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 score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.916

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.283
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

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydrological Forecasting Using AIFrench-language works237,207