MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7105642911 · doi:10.24400/527896/a03-2025.4179

Lake and river ice classifications with SWOT

2025· article· W7105642911 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSWOT analysisRadarHydrology (agriculture)CryosphereWater resourcesRadar imagingInterferometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lake and river ice play an essential role in northern latitudes, contributing to various human activities (such as transportation and fishing), weather regulation, aquatic ecosystems and as an indicator of climate change. Remote sensing data are increasingly used to monitor lake and river ice due to the scarcity of in situ observations, but significant challenges remain due to some limitations of optical and C, L, and X-band radar sensors. More accurate and frequent measurements of ice dynamics are also required. The SWOT satellite, with its Ka-band radar interferometer and high spatial and temporal coverage, offers an unprecedented opportunity to monitor lake and river ice. With SWOT data available since March 2023, we now have two whole winter seasons to study the signal on lake and river ice. As backscatter (sig0) decreases but interferometric coherence remains high (or phase noise standard deviation remains low), ice-covered areas can be detected. However, the signal also varies with the incident angle, requiring the development of an algorithm that takes sig0, coherence, phase noise standard deviation,and incident angle into account. Pixel-by-pixel classification with a random forest allows the monitoring of the spatial variability of ice cover. Pixels are classified into four categories: Water (original SWOT classes 3 and 4), Darkwater (class 5), Low-Coherence (classes 6 and 7) and Ice. The figure below shows an example for Richardson Lake in Canada in spring 2025. The pixel-by-pixel classification is then used in a second random forest to develop a dynamic ice flag for the HR_LakeSP product. The lake-scale classification was developed on lakes in Canada (15 lakes) and Norway (9 lakes) and tested on independent lakes (45 in Canada and 30 in Norway) during the 2024-2025 winter season, achieving an precision of more than 92% when compared to the visual interpretation of Sentinel-2 images, regardless of incident angle, lake size, or region. This classification will be applied to lakes in other regions (e.g. Alaska and Tibetan Plateau) in the next months to validate its global application. A similar classification for rivers is currently being developed at HR_RiverSP node level, again using pixel-by-pixel classification and random forest.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.155
Threshold uncertainty score0.309

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.233 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MIND→Same topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics→French-language works237,207→