Using Growing-Season Time Series Coherence for Improved Peatland Mapping: Comparing the Contributions of Sentinel-1 and RADARSAT-2 Coherence in Full and Partial Time Series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Differences in topographic structure, vegetation structure, and surface wetness exist between peatland classes, making active remote sensing techniques such as SAR and LiDAR promising for peatland mapping. As the timing of green-up, senescence, and hydrologic conditions vary differently in peatland classes, and in comparison with upland classes, full growing-season time series SAR imagery was expected to produce higher accuracy classification results than using only a few select SAR images. Both interferometric coherence, amplitude and difference in amplitude time series datasets were assessed, as it was hypothesized that these may be able to capture subtle changes in phenology and hydrology, which in turn differentiate classes throughout a growing season. Groups of variables were compared for their effectiveness in Random Forest classification for both Sentinel-1 and Radarsat-2. The Shapley value was used to determine the contribution of each group of variables in thirty scenarios, and Mean Decrease in Accuracy was compared to evaluate its ability to rank variables by relative importance. Despite being dual-pol, the results of classifications using Sentinel-1 coherence (12-day repeat) were significantly better than using fully polarimetric RADARSAT-2 coherence (24-day repeat), likely owing to the difference in baseline and specific acquisition dates of the data in this study. Overall, full growing season Sentinel-1 coherence time series produced higher accuracy results than fully polarimetric quad pol RADARSAT-2 coherence amplitude, difference in amplitude and polarimetric decomposition time series. Using a full growing season of time-series imagery in classification resulted in higher accuracy than using a few dates over a growing season. Using mean decrease in accuracy to rank and reduce variables resulted in a weaker classification than if the entire time series is used.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".