MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2983193096 · doi:10.1109/igarss.2019.8898030

A Dual-Frequency Ku-Band Radar Mission Concept for Seasonal Snow

2019· article· en· W2983193096 on OpenAlexaffabout
Chris Derksen, Juha Lemmetyinen, Joshua King, Stéphane Bélair, Camille Garnaud, M. Lapointe, Y. Crevier, Geoff Burbidge, Paul Siqueira

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsCanadian Space AgencyEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnowRadarSatelliteRemote sensingEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyComputer scienceGeographyEngineeringAerospace engineeringTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current satellite observing systems lack the capability to derive terrestrial snow water equivalent (SWE, the amount of liquid water stored in solid form by snow) at the spatial resolution, synoptic sensitivity, global coverage, and accuracy required for operational environmental monitoring, services, and prediction. The required combination of revisit time, spatial coverage, measurement resolution, and sensitivity to the mass of snow on the ground necessitates a new spaceborne observing concept. To address this observing gap, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC), the Canadian Space Agency, industrial partners at Airbus, and international scientific collaborators are developing a new dual frequency (Ku-band: 13.5 and 17.2 GHz), moderate resolution (250 m), wide swath (~500 km) radar mission concept. This paper provides an overview of the measurement concept, and ongoing science activities in support of the technical mission development.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations31
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207