MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1561157063 · doi:10.1080/07038992.2014.943393

RADARSAT-2 Beam Mode Selection for Surface Water and Flooded Vegetation Mapping

2014· article· en· W1561157063 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Lori White, Brian Brisco, M Pregitzer, Bill Tedford, Lyle Boychuk

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Remote Sensing · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSynthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and Techniques
Canadian institutionsDucks Unlimited Canada
FundersU.S. Geological Survey
KeywordsRemote sensingSynthetic aperture radarTerrainMode (computer interface)Environmental scienceBeam (structure)Polarization (electrochemistry)Vegetation (pathology)GeographyGeologyComputer scienceOpticsCartographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) is well known for its ability to map surface water. There are a number of SAR satellites providing data for this application including the Canadian RADARSAT-2 system. RADARSAT-2 has a wide range of beam modes and some users may be intimidated by the variety of choices and have a difficult time deciding on the most appropriate beam mode. This technical note addresses some issues behind beam mode and polarization selection for surface water mapping with RADARSAT-2 and the upcoming RADARSAT Constellation Mission (RCM). This includes the impacts of resolution, wind effects, and the best mode for flooded vegetation detection. The results show that high resolution modes like the single polarized Spotlight are best for accurately delineating the surface water edge and small patches of flooded terrain. The addition of the cross-polarization available in other beam modes can provide useful surface water information in windy or rough surface conditions because there is little effect on the RADAR backscatter compared to the HH single polarization. For accurately delineating flooded vegetation, a polarimetric or compact polarimetric mode is best because the phase is maintained, which allows the user to apply polarimetric decompositions models to help separate the RADAR backscatter.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.323

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations54
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Remote SensingSame topicSynthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and TechniquesFrench-language works237,207