Temporal Filters for Mapping Phragmites with C-HH SAR Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compared traditional spatial filters and multi-temporal filters to remove speckle from synthetic aperture radar (SAR) data for mapping Phragmites australis. SAR constellations, with more rapid revisit capability, allow one to generate stacks of SAR data and to use multi-temporal filters for speckle reduction. GAMMA software offers multi-temporal filters for SAR processing, two of which we compared to the traditional Enhanced Lee and the Lee filters. We evaluated the filters using three criteria: (1) visual inspection, (2) signal level ratio, and (3) the equivalent number of looks (ENL). The results of this study show that multi-temporal filters were able to reduce speckle from areas of surface water and land, as well as to improve the detection of Phragmites patches due to preserving the resolution and texture which helped in the detection of the patch boundaries. The signal level ratio was approximately 1.0 with the GAMMA Multi-temporal filter and approximately 0.9 with the other filters. The enhanced Lee and the two multi-temporal filters produced an equal ENL of about 6. However, due to small patch sizes and backscatter similarity with cattails and other cover types Phragmites patches were difficult to separate from other types of flooded vegetation with C-HH intensity only.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".