MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005264250 · doi:10.1109/igarss.2014.6946740

Mapping forest fire scars with simulated RCM compact-pol data

2014· article· en· W2005264250 on OpenAlexaff
Hangqing Chen, D.G. Goodenough, S.R. Cloude

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSynthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolarimetryRemote sensingComputer sciencePixelAlgorithmEnvironmental scienceScatteringArtificial intelligencePhysicsGeologyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper gives results of our assessment of the potential for using Radarsat Constellation Mission (RCM) C-band compact polarimetry (compact-pol) for detecting historical forest fire scars. We first summarize the compact-pol decomposition theory we developed for retrieving useful geophysical parameters from compact-pol data. We then demonstrate a combination of time series filtering and spatial filtering to reduce speckle noise in the geophysical parameters. Next we describe a rule-based classifier and show an application example based on a time series of simulated compact-pol data from Radarsat-2 Fine Quad-pol (FQ) mode to detect a 10-year old fire scar in our study site. Our study results showed that even though there was a loss of polarimetric information through projection of a complex scattering matrix of quad-pol data on a single-pixel level, the compact-pol mode was capable of maintaining important polarimetric information and detecting the test forest fire scar. Finally we look at the effect of non-circular transmit polarization on key decomposition parameters and discuss the effects of imperfect transmit polarization on classification performance.

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)0.002
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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