Characterizing the Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands with InSAR Observations from X-, C-, and L-Band Sensors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated the potential of using Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) imagery from three different frequencies: X-, C-, and L-band, to characterize coastal wetlands in the Great Lakes. Three sets of SAR data acquired over the Bay of Quinte, Ontario, Canada between 2016 and 2018 from Radarsat-2, 2016 from TerraSAR-X, and 2018 from ALOS-2 satellites were processed using small baseline subset (SBAS) Interferometric SAR (InSAR) techniques to provide maps of surface changes in marshes and swamps. Results showed that SAR backscatter and coherence were sensitive to sensor characteristics (frequency, polarization, incidence angle, acquisition interval), changes in water level, and phenology. InSAR time series observations were evaluated using measurements from water level loggers based on correlation and root mean square error (RMSE) from a linear regression model. Correlation between InSAR measurements and water level changes in the field varied from −1 to 1 depending on the site, type of wetland vegetation, and incidence angle. Although results from some sensor modes provided good correlation (0.77–1) at a few locations, the low fringe rate and large RMSE between 4 and 64 cm indicated that InSAR observations of water level changes in the dynamic wetland environment were generally underestimated.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".