MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911382427 · doi:10.4095/313591

InSAR measurement of surface deformations in south Ontario

2019· report· en· W2911382427 on OpenAlexaffabout
J Li, Shusen Wang, Chris Michel, H A J Russell

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSynthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and Techniques
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterferometric synthetic aperture radarGeodesySurface (topology)GeologyGeographyRemote sensingGeometryMathematicsSynthetic aperture radar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Detection of surface deformation can be measured using InSar, a geodetic technique that calculates the interference pattern which results from a difference in phase between images acquired by synthetic aperture radar (SAR). Ground surface deformation, in particular land subsidence is caused by numerous factors, such as: tectonic motion, sediment compaction, thawing permafrost, increased surface loading, Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA), hydro-chemical erosion of karst, decomposition of organic material in soils, mining, anthropogenic fluid withdrawal and surface water/drainage management. Groundwater applications have commonly been completed in areas of extreme subsidence due to dehydration and collapse of fine grained sediment textures; such as in the central valley of California, Nevada, and the Mexico city area. This study examines whether there is potential application of this technique to measure changes in surface elevation in southern Ontario and whether it can be related to changes in groundwater storage. For the southern Ontario study five datasets were used to assess the ground surface deformation and the hydrogeological/hydrologic conditions within the imagery extent. Datasets included: a set of 40 Radarsat-2 images spanning five years, GPS weekly solutions, Real-time kinematic (RTK) gps data, groundwater levels, terrestrial water storage data derived from GRACE satellites and hydrologic data from the Provincial Groundwater Monitoring Network (PGMN). Differential synthetic aperture radar interferometry (D-InSAR) has sub-centimetre precision and high spatial resolution over a large area. To eliminate some of the noise and to reduce geometrical distortions (multilook) images were averaged to a 50 m resolution. A stable reference site RTK TWOO was used a reference point. The TWOO GPS measurements were then added to the InSAR time series deformation maps. Obtaining a coherent signal was difficult and resulted in clustering of signal return from urbanized areas. The roofs and corners of the buildings in urbanized areas can form permanent scatterers, resulting in a more coherent signal. Across the study area, an annual rate of 1 mm to 10 mm of subsidence is observed. The greatest amount of subsidence (> 8 mm/year) is observed along the shore of Lake Ontario. In the absence of a field campaign to support validation the study has concluded that any viable signal attributed to specific geological - hydrogeological controls is within the signal-noise ratio of the study.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.232
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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