MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144648550 · doi:10.5194/hess-14-2355-2010

An inversion method based on multi-angular approaches for estimating bare soil surface parameters from RADARSAT-1

2010· article· en· W2144648550 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mahmod Reza Sahebi, Joel Angles

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrology and earth system sciences · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Moisture and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWater contentInversion (geology)Surface roughnessSoil scienceRemote sensingPixelSurface finishHomogeneousSurface runoffRadarEnvironmental scienceMoistureGeologyMeteorologyOpticsMathematicsMaterials sciencePhysicsGeomorphologyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. The radar signal recorded by earth observation (EO) satellites is sensitive to soil moisture and surface roughness, which both influence the onset of runoff. This paper focuses on inversion of these parameters using a multi-angular approach based on RADARSAT-1 data with incidence angles of 35° and 47° (in mode S3 and S7). This inversion was performed with three backscatter models: Geometrical Optics Model (GOM), Oh Model (OM), and Modified Dubois Model (MDM), which were compared to obtain the best configuration. Mean absolute errors of 1.23, 1.12, and 2.08 cm for roughness expressed in rms height and for dielectric constant, mean absolute errors of 2.46 – equal to 3.88 (m3 m−3) in volumetric soil moisture, – 4.95 – equal to 8.72 (m3 m−3) in volumetric soil moisture – and 3.31 – equal to 6.03 (m3 m−3) in volumetric soil moisture – were obtained for the MDM, GOM, and OM simulation, respectively. These results indicate that the MDM provided the most accurate data with minimum errors. Therefore, the latter inversion algorithm was applied to images, and the final results are presented in two different maps showing pixel and homogeneous zones for surface roughness and soil moisture.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.322
Threshold uncertainty score0.456

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations39
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrology and earth system sciencesSame topicSoil Moisture and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207