MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415222095 · doi:10.1109/jstars.2025.3622035

Melt Onset Variability in the Northern Canadian Arctic Archipelago From Synthetic Aperture Radar and Passive Microwave Satellite Observations, 1979–2024

2025· article· en· W4415222095 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Mallik Mahmud, Stephen Howell, Alex Cabaj, Mike Brady

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaMcGill University
FundersCanadian Space Agency
KeywordsSynthetic aperture radarArchipelagoSea iceArcticArctic ice packSatelliteSea ice concentrationSea ice thickness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The timing of sea ice melt onset (MO) in the Arctic is important because it controls the surface energy balance and influences the amount of sea ice that survives the melt season. Here, we investigate the timing of sea ice MO in the Queen Elizabeth Islands (QEI), located within the Last Ice Area of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, using Sentinel-1 synthetic aperture radar (SAR) imagery from 2015 to 2024. The Last Ice Area is the most stable ice region in the Arctic, and changes within this region provide insight into the overall health of Arctic sea ice. We used a threshold-based approach to detect MO for every SAR pixel using time-series backscatter. We contextualized the MO record within the framework of the earlier SAR record and the long-term passive microwave (PMW) record. The QEI region exhibited considerable interannual variability in the timing of MO, as detected by SAR, with a mean MO date occurring on day of year (DOY) 157 (± 6 days). From 2015 to 2024, no significant trend toward earlier MO was observed; instead, SAR and PMW data showed a slight delay. Extending the analysis back to 1997, utilizing RADARSAT-1/2 data revealed a 5-day per decade earlier MO trend, whereas PMW data (1979 – 2022) indicated a 1.31 to 1.49-day per decade decrease. Sentinel-1 SAR provided superior spatial detail relative to PMW, particularly near coastlines and in narrow channels and showed greater sensitivity to melt detection, with discrepancies in trends attributed to methodological and data variations.

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)0.001
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote SensingSame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207