MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2804943494 · doi:10.3390/rs10060844

Staring Spotlight TerraSAR-X SAR Interferometryfor Identification and Monitoring of Small-ScaleLandslide Deformation

2018· article· en· W2804943494 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Farnoush Hosseini, Manuele Pichierri, Jayson Eppler, Bernhard Rabus

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSynthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and Techniques
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSimon Fraser University
KeywordsLandslideRemote sensingInterferometric synthetic aperture radarTerrainSynthetic aperture radarGeologyDigital elevation modelInterferometryRadarScale (ratio)GeodesyGeomorphologyCartographyGeographyComputer scienceOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We discuss enhanced processing methods for high resolution Synthetic Aperture Radar(SAR) interferometry (InSAR) to monitor small landslides with difficult spatial characteristics,such as very steep and rugged terrain, strong spatially heterogeneous surface motion,and coherence-compromising factors, including vegetation and seasonal snow cover. The enhancedmethods mitigate phase bias induced by atmospheric effects, as well as topographic phase errorsin coherent regions of layover, and due to inaccurate blending of high resolution discontinuouswith lower resolution background Digital Surface Models (DSM). We demonstrate the proposedmethods using TerraSAR-X (TSX) Staring Spotlight InSAR data for three test sites reflecting diversechallenging landslide-prone mountain terrains in British Columbia, Canada. Comparisons withcorresponding standard processing methods show significant improvements with resultingdisplacement residuals that reveal additional movement hotspots and unprecedented spatial detailfor active landslides/rockfalls at the investigated sites.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.924
Threshold uncertainty score0.487

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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