Using K-Means-Derived Pseudo-Labels and Machine Learning Classification on Sentinel-2 Imagery to Delineate Snow Cover Ratio and Snowline Altitude: A Case Study on White Glacier from 2019 to 2024
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate equilibrium-line altitude (ELA) estimates are a valuable proxy for evaluating glacier mass balance conditions and interpreting climate-driven change in the Canadian high Arctic, where sustained in situ observations are limited. A scalable remote-sensing framework is evaluated to extract the snow cover ratio (SCR) and snowline altitude (SLA) on White Glacier (Axel Heiberg Island, Nunavut) and to assess the agreement with in situ ELA measurements. Ten-metre Sentinel-2 imagery (2019–2024) is processed with a hybrid pipeline comprising the principal component analysis (PCA) of four bands (B2, B3, B4, and B8), unsupervised K-means for pseudo-label generation, and a Random Forest (RF) classifier for snow/ice/ground mapping. SLA is defined based on the date of seasonal minimum SCR using (i) a snowline pixel elevation histogram (SPEH; mode) and (ii) elevation binning with SCR thresholds (0.5 and 0.8). Validation against field-derived ELAs (2019–2023) is performed; formal SLA precision from DEM and binning is quantified (±4.7 m), and associations with positive degree days (PDDs) at Eureka are examined. The RF classifier reproduces the spectral clustering structure with >99.9% fidelity. Elevation binning at SCR≥0.8 yields SLAs closely matching field ELAs (Pearson r=0.994, p=0.0006; RMSE =30 m), whereas SPEH and lower-threshold binning are less accurate. Interannual variability is pronounced as follows: minimum SCR spans 0.46–0.76 and co-varies with SLA; correlations with PDDs are positive but modest. Results indicate that high-threshold elevation-bin filtering with machine learning provides a reliable proxy for ELA in clean-ice settings, with potential transferability to other data-sparse Arctic sites, while underscoring the importance of image timing and mixed-pixel effects in residual SLA–ELA differences.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".