MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123856671 · doi:10.1175/jtech-d-20-0035.1

Compact Polarimetry Synthetic Aperture Radar Ocean Wind Retrieval: Model Development and Validation

2021· article· en· W3123856671 on OpenAlexafffund
Biao Zhang, Yiru Lu, William Perrie, Guosheng Zhang, Alexis Mouche

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOcean Waves and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsBedford Institute of OceanographyFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaFisheries and Oceans CanadaCanadian Space AgencyNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationOcean Frontier InstituteRussian Science FoundationDalhousie UniversityNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBuoyWind speedPolarimetrySynthetic aperture radarRemote sensingRadarWind directionGeodesyGeologyCircular polarizationPolarization (electrochemistry)MeteorologyPhysicsComputer scienceOpticsTelecommunicationsScattering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We have developed C-band compact polarimetry geophysical model functions for RADARSAT Constellation Mission ocean surface wind speed retrieval. A total of 1594 RADARSAT-2 images acquired in quad-polarization SAR imaging mode were collocated with in situ buoy observations. This dataset is first used to simulate compact polarimetric data and to examine their dependencies on radar incidence angle and wind vectors. We find that right circular transmit, right circular receive (RR-pol) radar backscatters are less sensitive to incidence angles and wind directions but are more dependent on wind speeds, compared to right circular transmit, horizontal receive (RH-pol), right circular transmit, vertical receive (RV-pol), and right circular transmit, left circular receive (RL-pol). Subsequently, the matchup data pairs are used to derive the coefficients of the transfer functions for the proposed compact polarimetric geophysical model (CMOD) functions, and to validate the associated wind speed retrieval accuracy. Statistical comparisons show that the retrieved wind speeds from CMODRH, CMODRV, CMODRL, and CMODRR are in good agreement with buoy measurements, with root-mean-square errors of 1.38, 1.51, 1.47, and 1.25 m s −1 , respectively. The results suggest that compact polarimetry is a good alternative to linear polarization for wind speed retrieval. CMODRR is more appropriate to retrieve high wind speeds than CMODRH, CMODRV or CMODRL.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.736
Threshold uncertainty score0.442

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Atmospheric and Oceanic TechnologySame topicOcean Waves and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207