MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104288208 · doi:10.1109/igarss.2002.1024971

RADARSAT ScanSAR roll angle estimation

2003· article· en· W2104288208 on OpenAlexaff
D.C. Bast, I. Cumming

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSynthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeam (structure)Image stitchingComputer scienceSwitchoverRange (aeronautics)AlgorithmSatelliteRemote sensingOpticsComputer visionEngineeringGeologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wide-swath SAR imagery obtained by the RADARSAT ScanSAR mode can suffer from radiometric artifacts. These artifacts arise from improper application of Range Dependent Gain Corrections (RDGCs), mainly due to insufficient knowledge of the satellite's roll angle. Specifically, roll angle estimation errors as small as 0.1 degrees can cause noticeable gain errors of 1 dB or more. Beam-stitching techniques exist which can reduce, but not eliminate, these errors in the beam overlap region Current roll angle estimation algorithms do not consistently provide adequate results. These algorithms are susceptible to RDGC uncertainties in terms of pattern shape and gain offsets. This paper proposes a new data acquisition method, in which signal data is obtained during the beam switchover by transmitting pulses through one beam and receiving them with another beam. This "2-beam data" is then used in a modified algorithm to provide a more accurate and robust roll estimate. The logistics of acquiring 2-beam data are also explored. The effects of various roll angle estimation errors on different beam combinations are simulated. The algorithm results from a current and two proposed algorithms are compared. Algorithms using this 2-beam data can tolerate an overall lower mean scene /spl sigma//sup o/ and more RDGC uncertainty than standard data.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations6
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSynthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and TechniquesFrench-language works237,207