C-Band SAR Imagery for Snow-Cover Monitoring at Treeline, Churchill, Manitoba, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RADARSAT and ERS-2 data collected at multiple incidence angles are used to characterize the seasonal variations in the backscatter of snow-covered landscapes in the northern Hudson Bay Lowlands during the winters of 1997/98 and 1998/99. The study evaluates the usefulness of C-band SAR systems for retrieving the snow water equivalent under dry snow conditions in the forest–tundra ecotone. The backscatter values are compared against ground measurements at six sampling sites, which are taken to be representative of the land-cover types found in the region. The contribution of dry snow to the radar return is evident when frost penetrates the first 20 cm of soil. Only then does the backscatter respond positively to changes in snow water equivalent, at least in the open and forested areas near the coast, where 1-dB increases in backscatter for each approximate 5–10 mm of accumulated water equivalent are observed at 20–31° incidence angles. Further inland, the backscatter shows either no change or a negative change with snow accumulation, which suggests that the radar signal there is dominated by ground surface scattering (e.g., fen) when not attenuated by vegetation (e.g., forested and transition). With high-frequency ground-penetrating radar, we demonstrate the presence of a 10–20-cm layer of black ice underneath the snow cover, which causes the reduced radar returns (−15 dB and less) observed in the inland fen. A correlation between the backscattering and the snow water equivalent cannot be determined due to insufficient observations at similar incidence angles. To establish a relationship between the snow water equivalent and the backscatter, only images acquired with similar incidence angles should be used, and they must be corrected for both vegetation and ground effects.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
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".