MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074234119 · doi:10.1080/01431160210144606

Towards an automated ocean feature detection, extraction and classification scheme for SAR imagery

2003· article· en· W2074234119 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Shuying Wu, A. K. Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Remote Sensing · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Space AgencyNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsComputer scienceSynthetic aperture radarFeature extractionArtificial intelligenceFeature (linguistics)Remote sensingPattern recognition (psychology)WaveletHistogramComputer visionGeologyImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spaceborne synthetic aperture radar (SAR) observation is an important tool for monitoring and studying changes in various geophysical elements in and above world oceans. Because of SAR's ideal imaging capability and high resolution, the collection of SAR data will likely extend well into the 21st century. As the data become increasingly abundant and computers faster and more affordable, it naturally leads to an increasing need for an automated procedure to replace the labour-intensive manual screening process. In this paper, an integrated scheme for detection, extraction and classification of linear ocean features in SAR imagery is attempted for the purpose of automated screening. The methodology consists of feature detection based on greyscale histogram screening, feature extraction based on two-dimensional wavelet analysis and feature classification based on texture analysis. Using these algorithms on SAR data, several case studies of linear ocean features, including fronts, ice edges and a polar low, are presented herein. Though not fully automated at this stage, the integration of these algorithms seems to lay a promising foundation for the future development of a more automated ocean feature detection, extraction and classification scheme.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations67
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Remote SensingSame topicOceanographic and Atmospheric ProcessesFrench-language works237,207