Statistical analysis and forecasting of sea ice conditions in Canadian waters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historical data of sea ice concentration in Canadian waters are analysed using projections methods (Principal Component Analysis, Singular Value Decomposition, Canonical Correlation Analysis and Projection on Latent Structures) to identify the main patterns of evolution in the sea ice cover. Three different areas of interest are studied: (1) the Gulf of St Lawrence, (2) the Beaufort Sea and (3) the Labrador Sea down to the east coast of Newfoundland. Forcing parameters that drive the evolution of the sea ice cover such as surface air temperature and wind field are also analysed in order to explain some of the variability observed in the sea ice field. Only qualitative correlations have been identified, essentially because of the singular nature of the sea ice concentration itself and the accuracy of available data. However, several statistical models based on identified patterns have been developed showing forecasting skills far better than those of the persistence assumption, which currently remains one of the best 'model' available. Forecasts are tested over periods of time ranging from a few days to several weeks. Some of these models constitute innovative approaches in the context of statistical sea ice forecasting. Some others models have been developed using a probabilistic approach. These models provide forecasts in terms of sea ice severity (low-medium-high), which is often accurate enough for navigation purposes for the three areas of interest. Forecasting skills of these models are also better than the persistence assumption. Finally, an existing dynamic sea-ice model has been adapted and used to predict sea ice conditions in the Gulf of St Lawrence during the Winter season 1992-1993. Simulations provided by this model are compared to the forecasts of different statistical models over the same period of time.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".