MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979237284 · doi:10.1109/igarss.2010.5651992

Unsupervised nonparametric classification of polarimetric SAR data using the K-nearest neighbor graph

2010· article· en· W1979237284 on OpenAlexafffund
Ashlin Richardson, D.G. Goodenough, Hao Chen, Belaid Moa, Geordie Hobart, Wendy Myrvold

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSynthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaNatural Resources Canada
FundersNatural Resources Canada
KeywordsInitializationCluster analysisFeature vectorPattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceSynthetic aperture radark-nearest neighbors algorithmPolarimetryArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polarimetric SAR classifications are often based on assumptions about the shape of clusters in the data space. Such a scheme will fail for nonlinear structures in the feature space, unless the classification algorithm has the capacity to describe cluster shapes in sufficient generality. Existing polarimetric SAR classification methods are faced by this exact problem: typically they initialize clusters in the Cloude-Pottier parameter space [1], further optimizing them in the coherency matrix space [2, 3]. Methods using K-means [2] or agglomeration [3] require clusters that are spherical, or compact and well separated, respectively. In the Cloude-Pottier space, these requirements are not met, so initialization in the Cloude-Pottier space cannot be consistent with optimization by K-means or agglomeration. This paper sets out to address this problem, by implementing a new data-driven clustering approach, for arbitrarily shaped clusters. It is applied to quad-polarisation data, demonstrating the new methodology's potential for forest land-cover type discrimination.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.741
Threshold uncertainty score0.395

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations25
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSynthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and TechniquesFrench-language works237,207