Airborne interferometric SAR results from mountainous and glacial terrain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In February 1992, the CCRS Interferometric SAR (CCRS C-InSAR system) was flown over a region in the Canadian Rockies. The test site covered part of the Kananaskis Valley and the Spray Lakes Reservoir and included terrain relief changes of over 1500 metres. The test site was imaged from the 4 cardinal points of the compass, however, the relief changes were so extreme that it was not possible to fill in every gap in the derived digital terrain model caused by layover and radar shadow. The DEM results have been checked by comparing the consistency of the results from opposing passes, by comparison with results generated from aerial stereo photography, and by comparison with GPS ground survey sites. It will be shown that the consistency of results from opposing passes is good and the implied system accuracy compares favourably with that obtained by comparison with the reference DEM and ground survey points. Deriving terrain elevation from Arctic glacier covered terrain using aerial stereo photography is difficult because of weather and flight requirements, coupled with the difficulty of identifying tie points in photography of terrain which is snow covered much of the year. To test InSAR's ability to map glacial terrain, the CCRS system was flown over a mountainous test site (with over 1600 metres relief change) on Bylot island in the Canadian Arctic. The test has confirmed the suitability of radar interferometric techniques for this type of terrain. Initial results are shown.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">></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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".