MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020545180 · doi:10.1109/igarss.2008.4779363

An Approach for Mapping Frozen Soil of Agricultural Land under Snow Cover using RADARSAT-1 and RADARSAT-2

2008· article· en· W2020545180 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jalal Khaldoune, Éric van Bochove, Monique Bernier, Michel C. Nolin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Moisture and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche ScientifiqueAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRemote sensingSynthetic aperture radarLand coverEnvironmental scienceSnowWatershedAncillary dataMeteorologyLand useComputer scienceGeologyEngineeringGeographyMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A frozen soil map is a key tool to assess environmental impacts of agricultural practices on water quality, because the frost penetration in the ground has a direct impact on runoff and nutrient losses at spring melt in Eastern Canada. SAR images data have a great potential to provide this information due to there sensibility to the soil dielectric properties. The goal of this study is to develop a classification model by analyzing interactions between the different parameters resulting from <i xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">in</i> <i xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">situ</i> field data and SAR images under snow cover and to produce frozen soil maps at watershed scale. Two issues will be tackled, the mapping of frozen soil using RADARSAT-1 images and the polarimetric scattering mechanisms generated by frozen/unfrozen soil status. In this paper we present some initial results of polarimetric radar measurements using the C-band Convair-580 SAR. The analysis is addressing polarimetric signatures and entropy-alpha space distributions.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.380
Threshold uncertainty score0.389

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoil Moisture and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207