MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3048792064 · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/abadcc

Airborne observations of arctic-boreal water surface elevations from AirSWOT Ka-Band InSAR and LVIS LiDAR

2020· article· en· W3048792064 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jessica V. Fayne, L. C. Smith, L. H. Pitcher, Ethan D. Kyzivat, Sarah Cooley, Matthew G. Cooper, Michael Denbina, Albert C. Chen, Curtis W. Chen, Tamlin M. Pavelsky

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Research Letters · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRemote sensingInterferometric synthetic aperture radarLidarEnvironmental scienceNadirElevation (ballistics)ArcticDigital elevation modelRadarSatelliteSynthetic aperture radarGeologyMeteorologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract AirSWOT is an experimental airborne Ka-band radar interferometer developed by NASA-JPL as a validation instrument for the forthcoming NASA Surface Water and Ocean Topography (SWOT) satellite mission. In 2017, AirSWOT was deployed as part of the NASA Arctic Boreal Vulnerability Experiment (ABoVE) to map surface water elevations across Alaska and western Canada. The result is the most extensive known collection of near-nadir airborne Ka-band interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR) data and derivative high-resolution (3.6 m pixel) digital elevation models to produce water surface elevation (WSE) maps. This research provides a synoptic assessment of the 2017 AirSWOT ABoVE dataset to quantify regional WSE errors relative to coincident in situ field surveys and LiDAR data acquired from the NASA Land, Vegetation, and Ice Sensor (LVIS) airborne platform. Results show that AirSWOT WSE data can penetrate cloud cover and have nearly twice the swath-width of LVIS as flown for ABoVE (3.2 km vs. 1.8 km nominal swath-width). Despite noise and biases, spatially averaged AirSWOT WSEs can be used to estimate sub-seasonal hydrologic variability, as confirmed with field GPS surveys and in situ pressure transducers. This analysis informs AirSWOT ABoVE data users of known sources of measurement error in the WSEs as influenced by radar parameters including incidence angle, magnitude, coherence, and elevation uncertainty. The analysis also provides recommended best practices for extracting information from the dataset by using filters for these four parameters. Improvements to data handing would significantly increase the accuracy and spatial coverage of future AirSWOT WSE data collections, aiding scientific surface water studies, and improving the platform’s capability as an airborne validation instrument for SWOT.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.188 · 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.

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

Citations22
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Research LettersSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207