Mapping near‐surface soil moisture with RADARSAT‐1 synthetic aperture radar data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An approach for mapping near‐surface soil moisture at the watershed scale from RADARSAT‐1 synthetic aperture radar (SAR) data was developed and tested on seven RADARSAT‐1 SAR images acquired over the northern portion of the Châteauguay River Basin in southwestern Quebec, Canada, dominated by agricultural and herbaceous fields. A soil surface roughness map was first retrieved from a SAR image by inverting an empirical backscatter model with known (or assumed) soil moisture. The resulting map was then used with the backscatter model to recover near‐surface soil moisture for the remaining SAR images. Field campaigns were conducted concurrent to SAR image acquisitions to measure soil moisture and surface roughness in 24 fields. Good agreement was observed between watershed‐scale soil moisture values and measurements averaged for all sampled fields, with a correlation coefficient of 0.96 and an RMS error of 2.2%. However, considerable scatter was found between observed and SAR‐derived soil moisture estimates at the field scale. Although the generated maps reveal reasonable small‐scale soil moisture variability, no definitive conclusions could be drawn as to whether or not the proposed approach can quantify soil moisture at the field or within field scale due to insufficient ground measurements. Furrows and herbaceous and crop vegetation, which are known to affect the radar signal, appeared to have little influence on the ability to retrieve soil moisture at the watershed scale for the images analyzed in this study.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".