Water resource applications with RADARSAT-2 – a preview
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fresh water is arguably the most vital resource for many aspects of a healthy and stable environment. Monitoring the extent of surface water enables resource managers to detect perturbations and long term trends in water availability, and set consumption guidelines accordingly. Potential end-users of water-related observations are numerous and reflect society as a whole. They encompass scientists and managers at all levels of government, aboriginal groups, water/power utility managers, farmers, planners, engineers, hydrologists, medical researchers, climate scientists, recreation enthusiasts, public school to post-graduate students, many special interest groups and the general public. Water data and analyses generate information products that benefit water resources planning and management, engineering design, plant operations, navigation activities, health research, water quality assessments and ecosystem management. As well, they serve as inputs for flood and drought warnings and weather and climate prediction models. Radar data in general, and RADARSAT in particular, are very good for detecting open surface water and have been used operationally for flood monitoring in many countries. Significant radar data archives now exist to analyse seasonal, annual and decadal trends, in order to attain a better understanding of the freshwater cycle. Radar data are also useful for wetland classification and soil moisture estimation. With the increasing pressure on water resources, both from a quality as well as a quantity perspective, the need will continue to increase for reliable information. RADARSAT-2 has several innovations that will enhance the ability to provide useful information about water resources. This paper provides an overview of the use of radar in general, and RADARSAT-2 in particular, for the generation of information products useful to water resource managers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.015 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".