MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7051291164

Operational Sea-Ice Classification of Dual Polarized SAR Imagery

2023· dissertation· en· W7051291164 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUWSpace (University of Waterloo) · 2023
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle Detector Development and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSea iceSynthetic aperture radarSegmentationConvolutional neural networkImage segmentationPoolingRadar imagingSatellite imagery
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mapping sea ice in polar regions is crucial for research and operational applications, such as environmental modeling and ship navigation. Synthetic aperture radar (SAR) offers a dependable and efficient means of monitoring sea ice under various weather conditions and operational scenarios. Presently, national ice services, such as the Canadian Ice Service (CIS), rely on experienced ice analysts to manually interpret SAR imagery and generate ice charts. Although these charts have been in use for decades, they possess several shortcomings. Manual interpretation necessitates significant expert resources and introduces human bias, and the charts only provide a region-based approximation of ice conditions. Consequently, automated sea-ice classification systems are highly desirable, aiming to accurately label each pixel in SAR imagery with the corresponding sea-ice type.
\n
\nAddressing the challenges in sea ice classification, such as intra- and inter-class variance, has proven difficult for single-model-based systems due to the limited spatial and contextual information captured. This thesis introduces sea ice classification methods comprising two primary stages: unsupervised segmentation to generate homogeneous regions, and labeling to assign each homogeneous region an appropriate label.
\n
\nTwo innovative methods that directly combine segmentation and labeling for automated sea ice classification are presented. Firstly, a convolutional neural network (CNN) based approach, inspired by the rapid advancements in deep-learning architectures, is developed to differentiate between sea ice and open water. A regional pooling layer is introduced to harness the spatial features learned through labeling and the contextual information extracted via segmentation. Since CNN models necessitate extensive labeled samples, which are scarce for various ice types, a random-forest-based method trained on limited labeled samples is formulated. Texture features are initially extracted from each pixel and then combined with an energy function to assign pixel-level labels of sea ice types to homogeneous regions.
\n
\nAcknowledging the limitations of direct integration, including the need for extensive labeled training samples and the inherent issue of CNN's limited receptive field, a semi-supervised graph convolutional network (GCN) based method is proposed for operational sea ice classification. A CNN is initially employed to extract features from each node generated by segmentation, followed by the construction of a graph based on the feature vector and the statistical relation between nodes. Lastly, a GCN is designed to propagate local spatial and contextual information to the global level, facilitating the classification of unlabeled nodes in the graph. As a semi-supervised method, the proposed network requires labeled samples from the processing scene as initiating nodes. In comparison to fully-supervised methods, the GCN-based approach substantially reduces misclassifications of sea ice types due to the absence of prior knowledge.
\n
\nThe classification outcomes reveal that the proposed methods demonstrate promising performance in their respective categories and surpass other state-of-the-art sea-ice classification methods in terms of both numerical accuracy and visual interpretation. Furthermore, the GCN-based method incorporates human supervision to enhance the quality of the produced sea-ice maps, which exhibit high consistency with ice charts released by ice analysts.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.638
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.205 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUWSpace (University of Waterloo)Same topicParticle Detector Development and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207