MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117600576 · doi:10.1109/igarss.2008.4779070

Extraction of Forest Biophysical Parameters Using Polarimetric SAR

2008· article· en· W2117600576 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michael Wollersheim, Michael Collins

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSynthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRemote sensingPolarimetryCanopyEnvironmental scienceClutterRadarForest inventoryBasal areaSynthetic aperture radarTree canopyComputer scienceForest managementGeographyForestryAgroforestryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is a continual pressing need for the ability to produce accurate, quick and cost-effective forest inventories to assist with forest management and the development of ecological models. Canada Space Agency's recently launched Radarsat-2 offers the ability to significantly advance this field with its multi-temporal and fully polarimetric C-band SAR capabilities. To explore the usefulness of C-band fully polarimetric data for modeling forest biophysical parameters, Convair-580 polarimetric C-band SAR data have been acquired over the Petawawa Research Forest in Ontario, Canada. An inventory of more than 1600 forest stands with information on species, age, canopy closure, height, stocking, basal area and volume have been obtained in order to determine which SAR parameters are most related to each of these biophysical parameters. The VV polarization, target anisotropy, ratios of the radar cross-section measurements and the order parameter of the K-distributed SAR clutter were found to consistently produce the strongest relationships.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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