MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7097022060

EARSeL eProceedings x, issue/year 1 Mapping Daily Snow Cover Extent over Land Surfaces using NOAA AVHRR Imagery

2014· article· en· W7097022060 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnowSnow coverArcticAdvanced very-high-resolution radiometerLand coverCloud coverSnow fieldPolar orbitClimate change
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) has identified snow cover, mapped on a daily basis at 1km resolution or better, as an essential climate variable. GCOS specifically highlighted the need to produce historical snow cover maps from NOAA AVHRR sensors. We present an algo-rithm, SnowCover, for mapping snow cover from polar orbiting optical sensors with frequent (~daily) repeat passes. The algorithm is based on a new time series filter, adaptive to local cloud conditions, and pixel wise calibration of snow and snow free end members. SnowCover was ap-plied to a 1km resolution climate data archive of NOAA AVHRR data over the Western Arctic to produce daily snow cover maps from 1982 to present with, on average, 90 % temporal coverage. Comparison of the maps with snow cover estimates derived from 83 in-situ long term snow depth sites in Canada indicate year round agreement rates above of 90 % at the 50%ile (85 % at the 95%ile). Agreement rates during the spring melt transition increases to 87 % at 50%ile indicating that the temporal filtering can preserve this phenomenon.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.149
Threshold uncertainty score0.497

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1490.072

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCryospheric studies and observations→French-language works237,207→