MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6964771709 · doi:10.26023/c142-7h9q-nj10

RADARSAT SAR Sea Ice Motion. Version 1.0

2007· dataset· en· W6964771709 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth Observing Laboratory · 2007
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSynthetic aperture radarSea iceSatelliteSpace-based radarRadar imagingRadarJet propulsionEarth observationBackscatter (email)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian RADARSAT satellite collected 195 synthetic aperture radar (SAR) images of the SHEBA site between November 1, 1997, and October 8, 1998 (roughly one image every 3-5 days). The C-band (5.3 GHz) RADARSAT SAR imaged a swath on the earth 460 km wide (in ScanSAR mode) with a pixel size of 50 m, unhampered by clouds or darkness. The satellite data were received and processed into imagery at the Alaska SAR Facility (ASF) in Fairbanks. Sequential pairs of images were then processed by the RADARSAT Geophysical Processor System (RGPS) at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena to derive the motion of the sea ice on a 5-km grid by tracking common features in each pair of images. Thus we have a year-long record of the spatial pattern of ice motion and the radar backscatter in the vicinity of the SHEBA site. The RADARSAT Geophysical Processor System (RGPS) created 184 ice motion products bundled into one .tar file from 184 sequential pairs of RADARSAT SAR images of the SHEBA region. The sea ice motion products are accompanied by 4 graphical products bundled into one .tar file.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.273
Threshold uncertainty score0.543

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.018

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarth Observing LaboratorySame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207