MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3003275479 · doi:10.1080/07038992.2019.1711033

A Modified Semi-Empirical Radar Scattering Model for Weathered Rock Surfaces

2020· article· en· W3003275479 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Byung-Hun Choe, G. R. Osinski, C. D. Neish, L. L. Tornabene

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Remote Sensing · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Moisture and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurface roughnessRadarSurface finishGeologySynthetic aperture radarScatteringWeatheringRemote sensingSaturation (graph theory)MineralogyBackscatter (email)GeomorphologyMaterials scienceOpticsComposite materialPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study presents a modified semi-empirical radar scattering model for weathered rough rock surfaces. Weathered rocks generally have dry surfaces except for a few hours after heavy rain due to their rapid drainage compared to bare soils. We find that the dielectric properties of the rocks themselves and the moisture content of a marginal amount of soil patches in and around the rock surfaces have a negligible effect on radar backscattering. Therefore, radar backscattering from rock surfaces is mainly controlled by surface roughness. Here, we modified the cross-polarization ratio model developed by Oh, which is formulated by only surface roughness parameters with no dependence on soil moisture. Based on LiDAR surface topography data collected from weathered rock surfaces in the Canadian Arctic and corresponding quad-polarimetric RADARSAT-2 synthetic aperture radar (SAR) data, we determined the best fit radar backscattering model for weathered rock surfaces. The modified model was successfully applied to estimate the surface roughness of weathered rock surfaces up to approximately ks = 7 where k is the radar wavenumber (= 2π/λ) and s is the root mean square (RMS) height. This approach avoids the rapid saturation feature observed at ks > 3 in other models.

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 score0.565
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Remote SensingSame topicSoil Moisture and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207