MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7092367461 · doi:10.1016/j.jag.2025.104911

A novel sea ice floe fragmentation index using Sentinel-2 and AMSR2 satellite data based on machine learning

2025· article· en· W7092367461 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersKorea Institute of Marine Science and Technology promotionKorea Polar Research InstituteMinistry of Oceans and Fisheries
KeywordsSea iceFragmentation (computing)Gradient boostingRandom forestSupport vector machineSatelliteIce fieldSea ice concentration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• Floe fragmentation index (FFI) quantifies the degree of sea ice floe fragmentation. • FFI revealed floe structural variation even at the same sea ice concentration (SIC). • FFI enables daily floe fragmentation monitoring via microwave and machine learning. • FFI proacted clearly to sea ice loss, even when SIC remained stable. • Rapid increase in FFI was consistently followed by a sharp decline in SIC. Sea ice indices such as sea ice concentration (SIC) play a key role in monitoring climate change. However, it does not fully capture the vulnerability of sea ice to melting, especially under conditions of floe fragmentation. To address this limitation, we introduce a novel metric—the floe fragmentation index (FFI)—designed to quantify the degree of fragmentation of sea ice. We constructed the FFI reference map using high-resolution Sentinel-2 imagery based on k-means clustering and manual editing. This reference was then paired with AMSR2 passive microwave data to train three machine learning models—gradient boosting (GB), random forest (RF), and support vector regression (SVR)—enabling consistent, daily mapping of FFI across the Arctic. FFI increases as sea ice becomes more fragmented. Even under identical SIC conditions (e.g., 50%), the reference FFI captured distinct differences in floe structure, demonstrating its ability to represent fragmentation more explicitly than SIC. In comparison with the reference FFI derived from Sentinel-2, the gradient boosting model demonstrated the best performance, with an R 2 exceeding 0.94 and a root mean square error (RMSE) below 0.22. Since RMSE was computed against the reference FFI, it is expressed in the same unit as FFI, which is dimensionless. To examine differences between SIC and FFI under relatively stable sea ice conditions, we focused on the Laptev Sea—a region where import and export of sea ice are minimal in summer. At the point of sea ice disappearance within this area, no early signs were observed in SIC, whereas FFI did reveal such signals. In particular, under conditions where the sea ice was highly fragmented and thus more likely to drift away or melt, SIC remained close to 100%, while FFI captured the relatively severe fragmentation of the sea ice. The time-series comparison between the FFI and SIC revealed that a rapid increase in FFI, highly exceeding its seasonal tendency, was followed by or occurred simultaneously with a rapid decrease in SIC, which also exceeded twice the magnitude of its seasonal tendency. Ultimately, the FFI complemented SIC by capturing fragmentation changes, potentially allowing earlier detection of SIC change in the melting seasons.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Applied Earth Observation and GeoinformationSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207