MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965544008 · doi:10.1117/12.740633

Current status of satellite data compression in Canadian Space Agency

2007· article· en· W1965544008 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Shen‐En Qian, A. Hollinger

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Data Compression Techniques
Canadian institutionsCanadian Space Agency
FundersNatural Resources Canada
KeywordsLossless compressionLossy compressionComputer scienceHyperspectral imagingData compressionRemote sensingSatelliteReal-time computingTelecommunications linkTelecommunicationsArtificial intelligenceAerospace engineeringGeologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the challenges in the development of a hyperspectral satellite is the extremely high data rate due to the huge data volume generated on board, which exceeds the downlink capacity, and may quickly exhaust the onboard storage capacity. To deal with this challenge the Canadian Space Agency (CSA) has been developing data compression technologies for satellite imagery data for many years. Compression techniques for operational use have been developed. Recently, two near lossless data compression techniques for hyperspectral imagery have been developed and implemented in hardware. The CSA is considering a near lossless data compressor for use on-board a hyperspectral satellite in order to reduce the requirement for on-board storage and to better match the available downlink capacity. This invited paper is to review the research and development of satellite data compression for hyperspectral imager at CSA, briefly summarize the two near lossless compression techniques, to address the application based assessment of the impact of lossy or near lossless data compression on Earth observation applications, and to provide up-to-date status of the hardware implementation of the on-board data compression technologies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.667
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicAdvanced Data Compression TechniquesFrench-language works237,207