MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098707560 · doi:10.5589/m13-005

Spatio-temporal analysis of ground deformation occurring near Rice Lake, Saskatchewan, and observed by Radarsat-2 DInSAR during 2008–2011

2013· article· en· W2098707560 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Sergey Samsonov, Pablo J. González, K. F. Tiampo, N. d’Oreye

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Remote Sensing · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSynthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and Techniques
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Space Agency
KeywordsGeodesyInterferometric synthetic aperture radarGeologyDeformation (meteorology)InterferometrySynthetic aperture radarSubsidenceLine-of-sightGeographyRemote sensingSeismologyGeomorphologyOpticsPhysicsAstrophysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present ground deformation maps for the southern Saskatchewan region between Rice Lake and the City of Saskatoon measured by Radarsat-2 Differential Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (DInSAR) during 2008–2011. We acquired and processed Radarsat-2 data from two different tracks (Multi-Look Fine beam and one Standard beam) and performed advanced interferometric analysis that revealed ground deformation with a maximum line-of-sight rate close to 10 cm per year. Decomposition of ascending and descending, line-of-sight images into horizontal (mainly east–west) and vertical components revealed the presence of localized horizontal motion with a maximum absolute rate of 4 cm per year and subsidence with a maximum rate of −10 cm per year. These results suggested that simple line-of-sight time series analysis of interferometric data acquired in single geometry is insufficient for capturing a complete pattern of ground deformation and can be misleading in the presence of both horizontal and vertical components of deformation.

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 score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.974

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.186
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 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

Citations22
Published2013
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Remote SensingSame topicSynthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and TechniquesFrench-language works237,207