MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

COMPARISON OF C-BAND AND X-BAND POLARIMETRIC SAR DATA FOR RIVER ICE CLASSIFICATION ON THE PEACE RIVER

2016· article· en· W2461515426 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Helena Łoś, Katarzyna Osińska-Skotak, Joanna Pluto-Kossakowska, Monique Bernier, Yves Gauthier, Martin Jasek, Achim Roth

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œinternational archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences/International archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsBC Hydro (Canada)Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique
FundersCanadian Space Agency
KeywordsRemote sensingSynthetic aperture radarWishart distributionSatellitePolarimetryRadarMeteorologyGeologyEnvironmental scienceGeographyComputer scienceMathematicsStatisticsEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. In this study, synthetic aperture radar (SAR) data from TerraSAR-X were compared with RADARSAT-2 data to evaluate their effectiveness for river ice monitoring on the Peace River. For several years RADARSAT-2 data have been successfully used for river ice observation. However, it is important to take into account data from other satellites as they may provide solutions when it is not possible to obtain images from the preferred system (e.g., in the case of acquisition priority conflicts). In this study we compared three TerraSAR-X (X-band) and three RADARSAT-2 (C-band) datasets acquired in December 2013 on a section of the Peace River, Canada. For selected classes (open water, skim ice, juxtaposed skim ice, agglomerated skim ice, frazil run and consolidated ice) we compared backscattering values in HH and VV polarisation and performed Wishart supervised classification. Covariance matrices that were previously filtered using a refined Lee filter were used as input data for classification. For all data sets the overall accuracy was higher than 80%. Similar errors associated with classification output were observed for data from both satellite systems.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œinternational archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences/International archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences→Same topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics→French-language works237,207→