MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065895153 · doi:10.1080/19479832.2013.831953

Impact of DEM source on Radarsat-2 polarimetric information during ortho-rectification

2014· article· en· W2065895153 on OpenAlexafffund
Thierry Toutin, Huili Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Image and Data Fusion · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSynthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and Techniques
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaNatural Resources Canada
FundersCanadian Space AgencyUniversité de Rennes 1
KeywordsRemote sensingPolarimetryDigital elevation modelComputer scienceSynthetic aperture radarTerrainRectificationGeologyGeographyCartographyOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ortho-rectification using digital terrain models is a key issue for full polarimetric complex synthetic aperture radar (SAR) data because resampling the complex data can corrupt the polarimetric phase, mainly in terrain with relief. Two methods for ortho-rectification of the complex SAR data can be applied: the polarimetric processing is performed before (image-space method) or after (ground-space method) the geometric processing. This research evaluated the impact of the digital elevation models (DEMs), which are generally available to users (topographic DEM and ASTER GDEM V2). The two methods were applied to three Radarsat-2 fine-quad data acquired with different look angles over a hilly relief study site. Quantitative evaluations between the two approaches as a function of different geometric and radiometric parameters were, thus, performed to evaluate the impact during the ortho-rectification. The results demonstrated that the look angles and the terrain slopes can potentially corrupt the single-look polarimetric complex SAR data during its ortho-rectification with the ground-space method, mainly at the layover limit. However, advice is provided to reduce these impacts to an acceptable level.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Image and Data FusionSame topicSynthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and TechniquesFrench-language works237,207