MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097653301 · doi:10.1109/igarss.1994.399715

Progress in the development of the CCRS along-track interferometer

2002· article· en· W2097653301 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
A.L. Gray, M.W.A. van der Kooij, K.E. Mattar, P.J. Farris-Manning

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSynthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterferometryAzimuthSensitivity (control systems)Remote sensingL bandGeologyC bandCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)Noise (video)OpticsMode (computer interface)Track (disk drive)TerrainGeodesyPhysicsComputer scienceEngineeringGeographyElectronic engineeringImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The CCRS C-band SAR owned and operated by the Canada Centre for Remote Sensing (CCRS) was modified in 1991 to operate in an across-track C-band interferometric mode for derivation of terrain elevation. This mode has now been extended such that the two C-band receivers can be used with two separate, almost identical, antennas aligned in the along-track direction thereby creating a SAR capable of detecting and measuring target radial motion. Two new C(H) antennas have been mounted on the right-hand side of the Convair 580 to form the along-track C-band interferometer. The antennas share a common, rigid, mounting structure and the phase centres are separated by 0.5 m. The primary application for this mode will be in ocean monitoring R&D; SAR wave and wake imaging, measurement of coastal and ocean currents, estimation of pack-ice drift, detection of sub-surface sand waves through current modulation, etc. while the short baseline dictated by the existing radome leads to a relatively low sensitivity to radial motion, approximately 24/spl deg/ per m/s, the time between image formation at the same azimuth geometry is small (less than 2 ms) with respect to typical C-band ocean coherence times (around 50-100 ms). This, combined with a good signal-to-noise ratio, will allow relatively low phase noise on the interferometric products and therefore adequate sensitivity to radial motion for most situations. A description of the new system and of ground and airborne testing are given.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">&gt;</ETX>

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 score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.147

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.222
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations6
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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