MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W751228070

Variations in the Sea Ice Edge and the Marginal Ice Zone on Different Spatial Scales as Observed from Different Satellite Sensor

2006· article· en· W751228070 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
T. Markus, John Henrichs

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSea iceSea ice concentrationRemote sensingSpecial sensor microwave/imagerSea ice thicknessAdvanced very-high-resolution radiometerModerate-resolution imaging spectroradiometerCryosphereEnvironmental scienceRadiometerGeologyArctic ice packClimatologySatelliteOceanographyMicrowaveBrightness temperaturePhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Marginal sea Ice Zone (MIZ) and the sea ice edge are the most dynamic areas of the sea ice cover. Knowledge of the sea ice edge location is vital for routing shipping in the polar regions. The ice edge is the location of recurrent plankton blooms, and is the habitat for a number of animals, including several which are under severe ecological threat. Polar lows are known to preferentially form along the sea ice edge because of induced atmospheric baroclinicity, and the ice edge is also the location of both vertical and horizontal ocean currents driven by thermal and salinity gradients. Finally, sea ice is both a driver and indicator of climate change and monitoring the position of the ice edge accurately over long time periods enables assessment of the impact of global and regional warming near the poles. Several sensors are currently in orbit that can monitor the sea ice edge. These sensors, though, have different spatial resolutions, different limitations, and different repeat frequencies. Satellite passive microwave sensors can monitor the ice edge on a daily or even twice-daily basis, albeit with low spatial resolution - 25 km for the Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I) or 12.5 km for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E). Although special methods exist that allow the detection of the sea ice edge at a quarter of that nominal resolution (PSSM). Visible and infrared data from the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) and from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) provide daily coverage at 1 km and 250 m, respectively, but the surface observations me limited to cloud-free periods. The Landsat 7 Enhanced Thematic Mapper (ETM+) has a resolution of 15 to 30 m but is limited to cloud-free periods as well, and does not provide daily coverage. Imagery from Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) instruments has resolutions of tens of meters to 100 m, and can be used to distinguish open water and sea ice on the basis of surface and volume scattering characteristics. The Canadian RADARSAT C-band SAR provides data that cover the Arctic Ocean and the MIZ every 3 days. A change-point detection approach was utilized to obtain an ice edge estimate from the RADARSAT data The Quickscat scatterometer provides ice edge information with a resolution of a few kilometers on a near-daily basis. During portions of March and April of 2003 a series of aircraft flights were conducted over the ice edge in the Bering Sea carrying the Polarimetric Scanning Radiometer (PSR), which provides spectral coverage identical with the AMSR-E instrument at a resolution of 500 meters. In this study we investigated these different data sets and analyzed differences in their definition of the sea ice edge and the marginal ice zone and how these differences as well as their individual limitations affect the monitoring of the ice edge dynamics. We also examined how the nature of the sea ice edge, including its location, compactness and shape, changes over the seasons. Our approach was based on calculation of distances between ice edges derived from the satellite and aircraft data sets listed above as well as spectral coherence methods and shape parameters such as tortuosity, curvature, and fractional dimension.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.411
Threshold uncertainty score0.950

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Geoscience and Remote Sensing SymposiumSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207