MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102425959 · doi:10.1109/igarss.2000.858347

DEM extraction from stereo SAR satellite imagery

2002· article· en· W2102425959 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer Ostrowski, Ping Cheng

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysics and Gravity Measurements
Canadian institutions3v Geomatics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpipolar geometryComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceComputer visionDigital elevation modelInterpolation (computer graphics)SatelliteResamplingImage warpingMatching (statistics)TerrainRemote sensingImage (mathematics)GeographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Automatic Digital Elevation Model (DEM) extraction from stereo SAR satellite images continues to be a challenge. The main difficulty is in obtaining the largest possible number of correct matches, at the same time minimizing the number of false matches and other artifacts and distortions in the derived DEMs. For accepted matches, the highest possible geometric accuracy is desired. This paper describes a number of enhancements in an operational module for DEM extraction: (1) image resampling to quasi-epipolar geometry, (2) uniform area detection and skipping, (3) matching window warping, (4) automatic screening and editing of matches, and (5) large hole interpolation. As a result of these enhancements, more detailed and more accurate DEMs with fewer blunders are extracted with minimum user interaction. This is illustrated by examples for various terrain and land cover conditions.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.173 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations19
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeophysics and Gravity MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207