MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973342514 · doi:10.5589/m02-066

Retrieving surface roughness and soil moisture from synthetic aperture radar (SAR) data using neural networks

2002· article· en· W1973342514 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nicolas Baghdadi, S. Gaultier, C. King

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Remote Sensing · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Moisture and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSynthetic aperture radarSurface roughnessRemote sensingWater contentArtificial neural networkMean squared errorRadarGeographyMathematicsGeologyComputer sciencePhysicsArtificial intelligenceStatisticsGeotechnical engineeringTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An inversion technique based on neural networks has been implemented to estimate surface roughness and soil moisture over bare fields using European Remote Sensing (ERS) and RADARSAT data. The neural networks were trained with a simulated data set generated from the integral equation model. Later the networks were applied to a field data set spanning a wide range of surface roughness and soil moisture, with backscattering coefficients for three radar configurations (VV 23°, HH 39°, and HH 47°). Approaches based on two and three radar image configurations were examined and tested. Although the three-image configuration produces slightly more accurate results, a two-image configuration gives results of comparable accuracy when a favourable combination of incidence angles is adopted. The introduction of a priori information on the range of soil moisture (mv) improves mv estimation. Soil moisture and surface roughness errors were estimated at about 7.6% and 0.47 cm, respectively, using the root mean square error (RMSE).

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations108
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Remote SensingSame topicSoil Moisture and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207