MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052358442 · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2012.2208649

Multiyear Crop Monitoring Using Polarimetric RADARSAT-2 Data

2012· article· en· W2052358442 on OpenAlexaffabout
Chen Liu, Jiali Shang, P.W. Vachon, Heather McNairn

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSynthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and Techniques
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSynthetic aperture radarRemote sensingBackscatter (email)Environmental sciencePhenologyPolarimetryScatteringRadarComputer scienceAgronomyGeographyPhysicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper studies the feasibility of monitoring crop growth based on a trend analysis of three elementary radar scattering mechanisms using three consecutive years (2008–2010) of RADARSAT-2 (R-2) Fine Quad Mode data. The polarimetric synthetic aperture radar analysis is based on the Pauli decomposition. Multitemporal analysis is applied to RGB images constructed using surface scattering, double-bounce, and volume scattering, along with intensity analysis of these scattering mechanisms. The test site is located in Eastern Ontario, Canada where the cropping system is dominated by corn, spring wheat, and soybeans. Each crop has unique physical structural characteristics which provide different responses for these scattering mechanisms. Significant changes occur in these scattering mechanisms as the crops move from one phenological stage to the next. By monitoring these changes over the season, the crop growth cycle from emergence to harvest can be observed. When harvest occurs, the backscatter intensities change significantly, and these changes aid in identifying crops. The temporal evaluation of the intensity of the scattering mechanisms generally track the measured leaf area index and observed phenological plant development. Changes in growth stage are crop type specific. Thus, to monitor changes in crop phenology and the occurrence of harvest activities, knowledge of the crop grown in any particular field is required. To accommodate this requirement, a maximum likelihood classification was performed on the R-2 data to produce a crop map. An overall classification accuracy of 85$\%$was achieved.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 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

Citations105
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote SensingSame topicSynthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and TechniquesFrench-language works237,207