MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095760232 · doi:10.1109/igarss.2009.5417496

Integration of RADARSAT-2 ScanSAR and AWiFS for operational agricultural land use monitoring over the Canadian prairies

2009· article· en· W2095760232 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jiali Shang, Heather McNairn, Catherine Champagne, Xianfeng Jiao, Ian Jarvis, Xiaoyuan Geng

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSynthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and Techniques
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersForeign Agricultural Service
KeywordsAgricultureRemote sensingSustainabilityFood securityScale (ratio)SatelliteLand useAgricultural landGeographyEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental scienceCartographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Agriculture plays an important role in the global economy, and sustainability of this sector is critical for world food security. Annual information on agricultural land use (crop inventory) would permit efficient and effective delivery of agricultural programs that support sustainability of this resource. Previous research has revealed encouraging results on using space borne satellite data (Landsat, SPOT) for crop mapping at the regional scale. Given Canada's large land mass, for operational crop monitoring satellite data with a wide swath and moderate spatial resolution are needed. This study presents the results on integrating RADARSAT-2 ScanSAR data with AWiFS data to improve crop identification. This study demonstrates that multi-temporal AWiFS data can produce an adequate crop classification, with an overall accuracy of 83%. The addition of ScanSAR data increases the overall classification accuracies. The radar contribution is most pronounced during the earlier season.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.205
Threshold uncertainty score0.413

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSynthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and TechniquesFrench-language works237,207