MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6888955678 · doi:10.24400/527896/a03-2022.3281

Machine Learning based Classification of Lake ice and Open water from SAR Altimetry waveform parameters

2022· article· en· W6888955678 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueCentre National d’Etudes Spatiales · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSynthetic aperture radarRadarOpen waterAltimeterShelf iceRandom forestRadar altimeterCryosphereCloud coverWater level

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lakes cover a significant fraction of the landscape in many northern countries and play a key role in regulating weather and climate. Lakes also have a significant impact on northern communities since the presence (or absence), extent and thickness of lake ice affect transportation (ice roads), food availability, recreational activities, and tourism in wintertime. The recent decline in in-situ observations of lake ice phenology (i.e., freeze-up and break-up dates, and ice cover duration) and lake ice thickness makes remote sensing technology a viable means for monitoring lake ice conditions. Although satellite altimetry has been used in various cryospheric studies, little work has been conducted on lake ice compared to sea ice, for example. This study was conducted at Great Slave Lake, Northwest Territories, Canada, using Sentinel-3A/B SRAL Level 2 data from June 2018 to December 2020. Reflections of radar altimeter echoes differ with properties/conditions of the target and the resulting radar returns contain information about the target surface. Hence, we explored information provided by waveforms to discriminate between open water and lake ice based on machine learning. To characterize the waveforms, five waveform parameters were extracted: Leading Edge Width (LEW), Offset Center of Gravity (OCOG) Width, Pulse Peakiness (PP), backscatter coefficient, and the maximum value of the echo power. Random Forest (RF) and Support Vector Machine (SVM) classifiers were selected to perform along-track classification of open water and lake ice. Class labelling was performed manually via visual interpretation of Sentinel-3 SRAL Level 2 waveforms, Sentinel 2 MultiSpectral Instrument (MSI) Level 1C data, and MODIS Aqua/Terra Level 1B data. Through our proposed method, we reached the highest accuracy of 91.89% (SVM) and 89.58% (RF) during the freeze-up period (November-December). Comparatively, classification performance was lower during the break-up period (late April-early June) reaching an overall accuracy of 77.19% (SVM) and 77.32% (RF). The backscatter coefficient and OCOG Width were found to be the two parameters of most importance for discriminating between ice and open water. Analysis of early results suggests that higher classification accuracies may be achieved by subdividing open water and ice into two more classes to represent leads and melting ice. In addition, pseudo LRM data from Sentinel-3 are currently being analysed and compared to results obtained with SAR data. These new results will also be presented. Keywords: SAR altimetry, lake ice, classification, waveform, machine learning

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.498
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

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)0.0050.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCentre National d’Etudes SpatialesSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207