Semi-Automated Surface Water Detection with Synthetic Aperture Radar Data: A Wetland Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, a new method is proposed for semi-automated surface water detection using synthetic aperture radar data via a combination of radiometric thresholding and image segmentation based on the simple linear iterative clustering superpixel algorithm. Consistent intensity thresholds are selected by assessing the statistical distribution of backscatter values applied to the mean of each superpixel. Higher-order texture measures, such as variance, are used to improve accuracy by removing false positives via an additional thresholding process used to identify the boundaries of water bodies. Results applied to quad-polarized RADARSAT-2 data show that the threshold value for the variance texture measure can be approximated using a constant value for different scenes, and thus it can be used in a fully automated cleanup procedure. Compared to similar approaches, errors of omission and commission are improved with the proposed method. For example, we observed that a threshold-only approach consistently tends to underestimate the extent of water bodies compared to combined thresholding and segmentation, mainly due to the poor performance of the former at the edges of water bodies. The proposed method can be used for monitoring changes in surface water extent within wetlands or other areas, and while presented for use with radar data, it can also be used to detect surface water in optical images.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".