MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029746156 · doi:10.1109/mgrs.2014.2321381

Evolution of the RADARSAT Program

2014· article· en· W2029746156 on OpenAlexaffabout
Guy Séguin, Satish K. Srivastava, Denis Auger

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsCanadian Space Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeaufort seaSea iceSynthetic aperture radarRemote sensingOpen waterMeteorologyBeaufort scaleGeographyOceanographyEnvironmental scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The RADARSAT program takes its origin in the seventies when the Canadian Government was seeking a reliable technology to ensure safe navigation through sea ice. At that time there was an expectation that it would be necessary for large tanker to navigate through the Beaufort Sea to transport oil extracted from drilling platforms. During the same period the Canadian Center for Remote Sensing was developing SAR applications using an airborne SAR instrument on a Convair 580. One of these applications of great interest for the Canadian Ice Service was ice discrimination provided by the C-band SAR data to support the development of ice map to guide navigation in winter in the Gulf of Saint-Lawrence Seaway. With the combination of both, interest for oil transportation in the Beaufort Sea and the need for accurate and frequent ice map the business case for RADARSAT- 1 was born. This paper provides an overview on the RADARSAT program since its beginning and is partially based on a presentation delivered in October 2013 at the Canadian Space Agency on the motivation and evolution of the RADARSAT program [1].

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)0.005
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing MagazineSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207