MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2098297495 · doi:10.1109/igarss.2009.5417991

Investigation of Radarsat-2 and Terrasar-X data for river ice classification

2009· preprint· en· W2098297495 on OpenAlexaff
Stéphane Mermoz, Sophie Allain, Monique Bernier, Éric Pottier

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRemote sensingPolarimetrySupport vector machineRadarC bandSynthetic aperture radarDual-polarization interferometryCover (algebra)Sea iceComputer scienceGeologyMeteorologyGeographyArtificial intelligenceAntenna (radio)PhysicsTelecommunicationsEngineeringScatteringOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To date, monitoring of river ice using remote sensing has mainly focused on the use of mono-polarized and multi-polarized C-band radar data only. In this paper, Support Vector Machine (SVM) classifications using polarimetric parameters are tested to identify types of river ice. Classification algorithms are validated on the newly available C-band Radarsat-2 and X-band Terrasar-X data to investigate the potential of this new imagery, acquired in winter 2009. An electromagnetic model is improved to simulate the polarimet-ric response of a river ice cover to understand the interactions of the radar signal with the ice cover. At C-band, using dual-polarized data over mono-polarized data increases by 23.9% the final classification producer accuracy. Furthermore, the best producer accuracy is 91.6% when using dual-pol data at C-band, which stand for a gain of 2.2% compared to dual-pol data at X-band.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations9
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics→French-language works237,207→