MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945348433 · doi:10.1109/lgrs.2019.2905578

A Geophysical Model Function for Wind Speed Retrieval From C-Band HH-Polarized Synthetic Aperture Radar

2019· article· en· W2945348433 on OpenAlexafffund
Biao Zhang, Alexis Mouche, Yiru Lu, William Perrie, Guosheng Zhang, He Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOcean Waves and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsBedford Institute of OceanographyFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersOffice of Energy Research and DevelopmentNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaGovernment of Jiangsu ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaCanadian Space AgencyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSynthetic aperture radarBuoyWind speedRemote sensingGeologyAzimuthWind directionPolarization (electrochemistry)RadarGeodesyEnvironmental sciencePhysicsComputer scienceOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Synthetic aperture radar (SAR) imagery is routinely acquired at HH-polarization in high-latitude areas for measuring surface wind over the ocean. However, in the contrary of VV-polarization, there is no HH-polarization geophysical model function (GMF) exists to directly retrieve wind speed from SAR images. In general, HH-polarized normalized radar cross section (NRCS) is thus converted into VV-polarization and then conventional CMOD functions are used with auxiliary wind direction information for wind speed retrieval. In this letter, we propose a new GMF for SAR ocean surface wind speed retrieval, called CMODH, which relates the C-band NRCS acquired at HH-polarization over the ocean, to the 10-m height wind speed, incident angle, and relative wind direction. We first use more than 220 000 ENVISAT ASAR radar backscatter measurements collocated with ASCAT winds to derive the CMODH coefficients. Subsequently, 1459 RADARSAT-2 (RS-2) and 428 Sentinel-1A/B (Sl-1A/B) HH-polarized SAR acquisitions under different wind speeds are matched to in situ buoy observations to validate CMODH. The statistical comparisons between SAR-observed and simulated NRCS show a bias of -0.07 dB and a root-mean-square error of 1.62 dB for RS-2, and -0.01 dB and 2.48 dB for S1-1A/B. These results suggest that the proposed CMODH has the potential to directly retrieve ocean surface wind speeds using C-band SAR images acquired at HH-polarization, with no need for NRCS transformation by using various empirical and theoretical polarization ratio models.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations47
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing LettersSame topicOcean Waves and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207