MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2548381828 · doi:10.1109/igarss.2016.7729447

The effects of temporal decorrelation and topographic slope on forest height retrieval using airborne repeat-pass L-band polarimetric SAR interferometry

2016· article· en· W2548381828 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael Denbina, Marc Simard

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSynthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecorrelationRemote sensingSynthetic aperture radarTerrainLidarInterferometric synthetic aperture radarInterferometryGeologyRadarDigital elevation modelPolarimetryRadar imagingGeodesyGeographyComputer sciencePhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have explored the effects of temporal baseline and terrain slope on forest height estimation using L-band repeat-pass polarimetric synthetic aperture radar interferometry. Data were collected using NASA's Uninhabited Aerial Vehicle Synthetic Aperture Radar instrument over a study area exhibiting high slope topography in the Laurentides Wildlife Reserve of Québec, Canada. We used lidar-derived canopy height and terrain slope maps to quantify the decorrelation effects that distort the observed coherences compared to the random volume over ground forest model. We derived forest height maps for a number of different temporal baselines using both fixed model parameters and model parameters that varied with slope, and compared the results. Use of a look-up table for the terrain slope effects improved the estimated forest heights, but further work is necessary to see if slope corrections derived from lidar data for this study area can be applied to other study areas, or generalized to a theoretical model.

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)0.002
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 score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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