Detecting wave patterns in Arctic nearshore waters using SAR imagery at Herschel Island - Qikiqtaruk, Yukon, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Arctic is one of the most impacted regions by climate change. Rising air temperatures and the shortening of sea ice periods lead to accelerated erosion rates of permafrost coasts. With coastal erosion, the input of sediment and organic matter into nearshore waters increases, \ninfluencing local economies, ecosystems and climate by releasing greenhouse gases. When investigating erosion processes in the Arctic, mechanical erosion by ocean waves is an important factor that must be considered. However, spatial and temporal patterns of significant \nwave heights ($H_s$) in these waters are not well known, since in situ measurements are often costly and time consuming and optical spaceborne imagery is bound to cloud free and daylight conditions. The aim of this study is to use the empirical XWAVE algorithm on high resolution SAR X-band imagery to investigate patterns of wind generated $H_s$ in an Arctic nearshore environment that is threatened by rapid coastal erosion. Several TerraSAR-X and TanDEM-X scenes were combined to calculate means of $H_s$ under changing wind conditions in the \ncoastal waters of Herschel Island Qikiqtaruk (HIQ) in the western Canadian Arctic since 2009. We use calibrated mulitlook data acquired in the Strip Map mode with dual and single polarisation and the XWAVE algorithm to calculate the sea state of each available ice free scene in that region. We map the spatial patterns of $H_s$ under different wind conditions and \ntime periods in order to find significant wave patterns that might influence coastal morphology. \nFirst results show that over the ice free period, waves appear to be highest northwest of the island while there is a long calm strip along the southeast coastline. This matches the overall westerly wind regime through which HIQ protects the easterly nearshore waters. The northwestern sea state is also characterised by the highest variability in $H_s$ which could coincide with the fetch length depending on sea ice conditions further off-shore. In contrast, the eastern and south-eastern near-shore sea state is more stable as these waters are bordered \nby land. \nOur results show the potential of SAR imagery to detect sea state patterns in remote environments, but also show the need to specifically tune the algorithm to nearshore waters.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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 teacher head, 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".