Separability analysis of wetlands in Canada using multi-source SAR data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".