MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100207063 · doi:10.5589/m02-016

RADARSAT-1 mission planning: Meeting customer needs over 5 years of evolving operations

2002· article· en· W2100207063 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Laryssa Patten, Greta Burger, Patricia Voumard

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Remote Sensing · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSynthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Space Agency
KeywordsTimelineSynthetic aperture radarPayload (computing)Data qualityScheduling (production processes)Computer scienceEngineeringGeographyRemote sensingOperations managementComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The RADARSAT-1 Mission Management Office (MMO) has been planning and scheduling the SAR payload, ground reception, and processing facilities that supply the World's synthetic aperture radar (SAR) user community with timely RADARSAT-1 data since 1995. The goal of the MMO is to provide users with timely, high-quality data in a manner continuously being refined to meet changing needs. As the RADARSAT-1 client base and network of stations expanded, the demand for data increased, new applications were found, and new requirements were outlined. Over 5 years the number of ground stations grew from three reception facilities (two in Canada, and one in the United States) to 16 worldwide. To support new facilities, higher data demands, and new data applications, the MMO system required changes to support time-critical information transfer between facilities and improve data delivery timelines and image quality. This paper has two main purposes: describe the current RADARSAT-1 acquisition planning operations system, and summarize the operational improvements made over the last 5 years with the focus being how changes affected SAR users.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.207 · 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
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

Citations8
Published2002
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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