MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980162754 · doi:10.3390/rs11192321

On C-Band Quad-Polarized Synthetic Aperture Radar Properties of Ocean Surface Currents

2019· article· en· W2980162754 on OpenAlexafffund
Shengren Fan, Vladimir Kudryavtsev, Biao Zhang, William Perrie, Bertrand Chapron, Alexis Mouche

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOcean Waves and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsBedford Institute of OceanographyFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaRussian Science FoundationGovernment of Jiangsu ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaCanadian Space AgencyNational Program on Global Change and Air-Sea InteractionNational Science Foundation
KeywordsScatteringBreaking waveBackscatter (email)Synthetic aperture radarSpecular reflectionPhysicsPolarization (electrochemistry)OpticsWind waveRadarComputational physicsGeologyRemote sensingWave propagationChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present new results for ocean surface current signatures in dual co- and cross-polarized synthetic aperture radar (SAR) images. C-band RADARSAT-2 quad-polarized SAR ocean scenes are decomposed into resonant Bragg scattering from regular (non-breaking) surface waves and scattering from breaking waves. Surface current signatures in dual co- and cross-polarized SAR images are confirmed to be governed by the modulations due to wave breaking. Due to their small relaxation scale, short Bragg waves are almost insensitive to surface currents. Remarkably, the contrast in sensitivity of the non-polarized contribution to dual co-polarized signals is found to largely exceed, by a factor of about 3, the contrast in sensitivity of the corresponding cross-polarized signals. A possible reason for this result is the co- and cross-polarized distinct scattering mechanisms from breaking waves: for the former, quasi-specular radar returns are dominant, whereas for the latter, quasi-resonant scattering from the rough breaking crests governs the backscatter intensity. Thus, the differing sensitivity can be related to distinct spectral intervals of breaking waves contributing to co- and cross-polarized scattering in the presence of surface currents. Accordingly, routinely observed current signatures in quad-polarized SAR images essentially originate from wave breaking modulations, and polarized contrasts can therefore help quantitatively retrieve the strength of surface current gradients.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.919
Threshold uncertainty score0.694

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 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

Citations13
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicOcean Waves and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207