MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088874508 · doi:10.1117/12.894211

In-season crop inventory using multi-angle and multi-pass RADARTSAT-2 SAR data over the Canadian prairies

2011· article· en· W2088874508 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jiali Shang, Heather McNairn, Benjamin Deschamps, X. Jiao

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSynthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and Techniques
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaCanadian Space AgencyUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsGrowing seasonCropCanolaRandom forestGeographyRemote sensingEnvironmental scienceForestryComputer scienceAgronomyArtificial intelligenceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In response to the increasing demand on in-season crop inventory, this study presents results of early season crop identification and acreage estimates based on a random forest classifier using RADARSAT-2 fine quad (FQ) SAR data. Thirty RADARSAT-2 FQ SAR scenes acquired over Indian Head, Canada, during the 2009 AgriSAR campaign led by the European Space Agency (ESA) were analyzed. Consistent with results from other researches, this study revealed that the highest classification accuracies are achieved in mid to late season (early July to mid August) when most of the crops experiencing vegetative growth and early reproduction. In addition by incorporating multi-beam images, an increase in classification accuracy of 2% to 12% can be achieved. For images acquired close in time, shallower incidence angles usually give better classification accuracy compared with steeper incidence angles. In order to achieve optimal classification performance, both multi-temporal and multi-beam acquisitions should be combined. For major crops such as canola, spring wheat, lentil, and field peas, over 85% accuracies can be reached early in the growing season (early July) when multi-temporal multi-beam RADARSAT-2 FQ data are used.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.802
Threshold uncertainty score0.940

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicSynthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and TechniquesFrench-language works237,207