MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2987136323 · doi:10.1109/igarss.2019.8898560

Assessment of Compact Polarimetric SAR Parameters for Lake and Fast Sea Ice Characterisization

2019· article· en· W2987136323 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammed Dabboor, Mohammed Shokr

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsGovernment of CanadaEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSynthetic aperture radarRemote sensingSea icePolarimetryGeologyRadar imagingRadarSpace-based radarComputer scienceBistatic radarOceanographyScattering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) remote sensing has become a valuable tool for sea ice monitoring. A recently proposed SAR configuration for Earth observation called compact polarimetric (CP) SAR could be a good compromised choice between conventional (single or dual) and fully polarimetric SAR for operational sea ice observation. Given its enhanced radar target information compared to conventional SAR systems over wider swath coverage compared to fully polarimetric SAR systems, CP SAR systems could play important role in the new generation of Earth observation systems. In this study, fully polarimetric SAR images were collected over the Resolute Bay area during the fall of 2017. Acquired images are used for the simulation of CP SAR images and the derivation of a set of 23 CP SAR parameters from each image. The derived CP parameters were analysed in relation to the ice thickness and salinity of lake ice and fast sea ice. Results are compared against backscattering and decomposition parameters derived from the fully polarimetric SAR imagery.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics→French-language works237,207→