MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7105660929 · doi:10.24400/527896/a03-2025.3979

Ice detection with SWOT data

2025· article· W7105660929 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSWOT analysisMesoscale meteorologyCluster analysisAltimeterIcebergOpen waterTerrainCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)Segmentation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Surface Water Ocean Topography (SWOT) mission launched in December 2022 started a new era of spatial altimetry and hydrology. Its objectives are to characterise ocean mesoscale and submesoscale circulation, and to characterise spatial and temporal variations in surface waters. Two types of topography data are generated: Low Rate (LR) data over the oceans, with a spatial resolution from 250 m to 2 km, and High Rate (HR) data over inland waters, with a spatial resolution from 10 to 60 m. The study of glaciated regions, whether located in the open ocean or inland, still represents major scientific and technical challenges. However, the groundbreaking performance of the SWOT mission could allow us to study them in detail. Indeed, already available SWOT data show the potential for detecting ice over continental areas as well as sea ice. This study develops an ice detection algorithm for lakes and rivers based on SWOT HR data. A first study showed the ability to discriminate between ice and water over lakes at the Swedish/Norwegian border using the Level 2 Pixel Cloud Product: by combining σ0, height and coherence information, water-filled cracks in ice layers (called leads) were detected. Based on these findings, segmentation algorithms were tested on a scene featuring lake Athabasca in Canada in May 2023, when the ice-cover started to break up in pieces. Unspervised machine learning algorithms were implemented, taking as input 2D images of σ0, height and coherence values. After some preprocessing steps, a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) followed by a clustering algorithm separates the points into several groups. Based on their σ0 and coherence values, each cluster in the image is classified as either ”ice” or ”water.” The output is a 2-D water and ice mask matching the sampling of the input products. In order to quantify the performance of each algorithm, a small dataset of hand-labelled Sentinel-2 optical images was created. The results of this study demonstrate the potential of SWOT data to detect ice. The existing algorithm should be refined in the future by adapting it to SWOT version D products and making it more robust to different ice and water conditions. The updated algorithm could then be used to train a Machine Learning model able to detect sea ice. Being able to detect ice both on the ocean surfaces and on inland waters is a key issue for numerous scientific and socio-economic topics.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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