MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000014710 · doi:10.1109/igarss.2012.6350639

Study and assessment of selected primitive features behaviour for SAR image description

2012· article· en· W2000014710 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Corneliu Octavian Dumitru, Mihai Datcu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSynthetic aperture radarComputer scienceOrbit (dynamics)Search engine indexingFeature (linguistics)Artificial intelligenceRadar imagingComputer visionRemote sensingRadarGeologyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main purpose of this study is to define for Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) data the primitive feature parameters, the incidence angle, and the orbit direction which can be used further for indexing and querying in the EO systems. The evaluation is done on the high resolution SAR data and the interpretation is realized automatically. In this paper, we propose to study and asses the behavior of the primitive feature extracted methods for images of the same scene with two look angles covering the min-max range of the sensor and with ascending / descending orbit looking. The tests are done on TerraSAR-X products Stripmap and high resolution Spotlight, specially and radiometrically enhanced covering the area of Berlin (Germany) and Ottawa (Canada). To identify the optimal primitive features, incident angle, and orbit direction the Support Vector Machine and as a measure of the classification accuracy the precision/recall were considered.

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)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207