MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2961186686 · doi:10.1080/15481603.2019.1643530

Separability analysis of wetlands in Canada using multi-source SAR data

2019· article· en· W2961186686 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueGIScience & Remote Sensing · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFlood Risk Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsCentre For Cold Ocean Resources Engineering
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWetlandRemote sensingSwampMarshEnvironmental scienceSynthetic aperture radarGeologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurately classifying and monitoring wetlands using new technologies is important because of many services that wetlands provide to the environment. In this regard, Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) systems provide valuable data to separate different wetland classes. Using large amount of field samples collected over three years, 78 SAR features extracted from multi-source satellites were investigated to select the most important features and decomposition methods for discriminating five wetland classes: Bog, Fen, Marsh, Swamp, and Shallow Water. The results indicated that the ratio features obtained from the diagonal elements of the covariance matrix (extracted from full polarimetric data RADARSAT-2 imagery) and the intensity layers of the dual polarimetric data (i.e., the data acquired by Sentinel-1 and ALOS-2) were most useful for distinguishing wetland class pairs as well as all wetland classes. In this regard, the ratio of HH and HV channels had the highest potential especially for discriminating herbaceous (Bog, Fen, Marsh) and woody (e.g., Swamp) wetlands. Moreover, the features derived from eigenvalues of the coherency matrix (e.g., Anisotropy, serd, normalized serd, and normalized derd) were among the most optimum features for wetland classification. Regarding the decomposition techniques, the H/A/Alpha and Freeman-Durden methods were selected as the best to discriminate wetlands. In terms of scattering mechanisms, it was observed that the volume component was generally the most useful element to discriminate wetland classes compared to the two other components (i.e., single- and double-bounce). This study comprehensively discusses the efficiency of various SAR features/decomposition methods for wetland studies and the results are expected to help with creating sustainable policies and management for wetland protection and monitoring using remote sensing methods.

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.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.390
Threshold uncertainty score0.471

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.248 · 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