MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6884657245 · doi:10.11575/prism/46563

Detecting Melt Pond Onset on Landfast Arctic Sea Ice Using a Dual C-Band Satellite Approach

2024· other· en· W6884657245 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Calgary · 2024
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSea iceMelt pondArchipelagoSatelliteArctic ice packArcticScatterometerWind speed

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The presence of melt ponds on the surface of Arctic sea ice affects its albedo, thermal properties, and overall melting rate, and thus, the detection of melt pond onset is of significant importance for understanding the Arctic's changing climate. This study investigates the utility of a novel method for detecting the onset of melt ponds on sea ice using a satellite-based, dual-sensor C-band approach, whereby Sentinel-1 provides horizontally polarized (HH) data and Advanced SCATterometer (ASCAT) provides vertically polarized (VV) data. The co-polarized ratio (VV/HH) is used to detect the presence of melt ponds on landfast sea ice in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago in 2017 and 2018. ERA-5 air temperature, and wind speed reanalysis datasets are used to establish the VV/HH threshold for pond onset detection which have been further validated by Landsat-8 reflectance. Co-polarized ratio threshold of 3 standard deviations from late winter season (April) acquisitions is used for assessing pond onset detection associated with the air temperature and wind speed data along with visual observation from Sentinel-1 and cloud-free Sentinel-2 imagery. In 2017, the pond onset detection rate percentages were 70.59% for FYI and 92.3% for MYI. Results suggest that this method, because of its dual-platform application, has potential for providing large-area coverage estimation of sea ice melt pond onset timing using different earth observation satellites.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.140
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.219
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of CalgaryFrench-language works237,207