Radarsat data analysis for monitoring and evaluation of irrigation projects in the monsoon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The availability of multi-look angle HH polarization C band SAR data of different swaths and resolutions from Radarsat, in addition to VV polarization C band SAR data from ERS, has raised hopes for separating individual crops and for estimating soil moisture, enabling monitoring and evaluation of irrigation projects even under cloud cover conditions. Under the Radarsat ADRO Project, an attempt was made to identify irrigated crops in the Bhadra project command area, Karnataka state, India, using temporal, multi-look angle and dual polarization C-band SAR data from Radarsat and ERS. Preliminary analysis included data quality evaluation, rectification, speckle suppression and separability comparison of different land use and land cover classes. Evaluation of Radarsat data quality showed consistency in spatial resolution. Radarsat data acquired on different dates in shallow (S7 mode) and steep (S2 mode) angles and concurrent ERS-2 data were processed and analysed for possible discrimination of individual crops. It was observed that Radarsat data showed better separability of land use and land cover classes than ERS data. Principal Component Analysis was used on multi-look angle and dual polarization data from both ERS and Radarsat to reduce data dimensionality and the results were better with the first three components.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".