MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981160410 · doi:10.1109/lgrs.2019.2944432

Assessing the Usefulness of Iceberg Electromagnetic Backscatter Modeling Using a C-Band SAR Classifier

2019· article· en· W2981160410 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Md. Saimoom Ferdous, Umma H. Himi, Peter McGuire, Desmond Power, Thomas Johnson, Michael Collins

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryCentre For Cold Ocean Resources EngineeringUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British ColumbiaMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSynthetic aperture radarSupport vector machineComputer scienceRemote sensingRandom forestIcebergAzimuthBackscatter (email)Data setArtificial intelligenceClassifier (UML)k-nearest neighbors algorithmPattern recognition (psychology)GeologySea iceMathematicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This letter presents the validation of an electromagnetic (EM) backscatter model of icebergs at C-band by comparing the performances of target classifiers trained with both modeled and real synthetic aperture radar (SAR) data. Simulated SAR data were obtained in a combination of imaging beam modes and scene parameters to produce 216 simulated Sentinel-1 C-band SAR images. Parameters consisted of Sentinel-1 IW1 (33.1°) and IW3 (43.1°) beam modes with varying wind speed (5 and 10 m/s), wind direction (0°, 45°, and 90°), and target orientation (0°, 45°, and 90°). Simulations were created from an EM SAR simulator called GRECOSAR, which took 3-D profiles of iceberg and ship targets and parameters necessary to closely mimic the real scenes. 3-D models of three icebergs were captured in a field study off the coast of Bonavista, Newfoundland, and Labrador, Canada in June 2017. Three generic ship models were sourced from an online inventory and scaled to a size equivalent to that of the iceberg targets. Real SAR image data were drawn from in-house data set collected from a complementary research program. Classifiers including support vector machine (SVM), Random Forest (RanFor), k-nearest neighbor (kNN), and neural network (NN) were trained with targets from modeled SAR data and then gradually mixed with real SAR data. Target classifier performance from the modeled target data was shown to be similar to classifiers trained entirely from real SAR data. The similarity in accuracy provides an indication of the validity of the modeled SAR data for this specific application.

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)0.001
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 score0.849
Threshold uncertainty score0.524

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing LettersSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207