MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987476433 · doi:10.1109/igarss.2015.7326069

Coherent stacks of RADARSAT-2 spotlight mode interferometry data for monitoring Arctic DEW Line Clean-Up

2015· article· en· W1987476433 on OpenAlexaffabout
K.E. Mattar, Jeff Secker

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSynthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and Techniques
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDewRemote sensingSynthetic aperture radarInterferometryEnvironmental scienceLine (geometry)ArcticMeteorologyChange detectionRadarGeologyComputer scienceGeographyTelecommunicationsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The DEW Line Clean-Up proof-of-concept project was conducted to determine if space-based Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) data from the Canadian satellite RADARSAT-2 can be used for landfill monitoring at the DEW Line sites. Interferometric stacks (time series consisting of interleaved 24-day cycles) of RADARSAT-2 Spotlight mode images are being acquired over four of the former DEW Line sites. Results show that amplitude change detection, coherent change detection and surface deformation products are useful for detecting change in and around landfills. Although these techniques cannot fully eliminate site visits and visual inspection, this study has shown that space-borne SAR can detect structural changes not yet evident to the field inspection teams and provide other useful information such as flooding. The RADARSAT Constellation Mission (RCM) with its four-day coherent repeat (scheduled for launch in 2018) will prove a great asset for monitoring the former DEW Line sites.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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