MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011961220 · doi:10.3390/rs6032372

Multi-Temporal Polarimetric RADARSAT-2 for Land Cover Monitoring in Northeastern Ontario, Canada

2014· article· en· W2011961220 on OpenAlexafffundabout
J. Cable, John M. Kovacs, Jiali Shang, Xianfeng Jiao

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSynthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and Techniques
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaNipissing University
FundersNorthern Ontario Heritage Fund CorporationNipissing University
KeywordsRemote sensingPolarimetryBackscatter (email)Environmental scienceWetlandLand coverSynthetic aperture radarVegetation (pathology)Physical geographyGeographyLand useScatteringEcologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For successful applications of microwave remote sensing endeavors it is essential to understand how surface targets respond to changing synthetic aperture radar (SAR) parameters. The purpose of the study is to examine how two particular parameters, acquisition time and incidence angle, influences the response from various land use/land cover types (forests, urban infrastructure, surface water and marsh wetland targets) using nine RADARSAT-2 C-band fine-beam (FQ7 and FQ21) fully polarimetric SAR data acquired during the 2011 growing season over northern Ontario, Canada. The results indicate that backscatter from steep incidence angle acquisitions was typically higher than shallow angles. Wetlands showed an increase in HH and HV intensity due to the growth of emergent vegetation over the course of the summer. The forest and urban targets displayed little variation in backscatter over time. The surface water target showed the greatest difference with respect to incidence angle, but was also determined to be the most affected by wind conditions. Analysis of the co-polarized phase difference revealed the urban target as greatly influenced by the incidence angle. The observed phase differences of the wetland target for all acquisitions also suggested evidence of double-bounce interactions, while the forest and surface water targets showed little to no phase difference. In addition, Cloude-Pottier and Freeman-Durden decompositions, when analyzed in conjunction with polarimetric response plots, provided supporting information to confidently identify the various targets and their scattering mechanisms.

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 score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.618

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations46
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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