MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3190435894 · doi:10.3390/rs13153048

A Robust SAR Speckle Tracking Workflow for Measuring and Interpreting the 3D Surface Displacement of Landslides

2021· article· en· W3190435894 on OpenAlexafffund
Davide Donati, Bernhard Rabus, Jeanine Engelbrecht, Doug Stead, John J. Clague, Mirko Francioni

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsBGC Engineering (Canada)Simon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLandslideGeologySlumpingDisplacement (psychology)Remote sensingGeodesySynthetic aperture radarSpeckle patternWorkflowGeomorphologyComputer scienceComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a workflow for investigating large, slow-moving landslides which combines the synthetic aperture radar (SAR) technique, GIS post-processing, and airborne laser scanning (ALS), and apply it to Fels landslide in Alaska, US. First, we exploit a speckle tracking (ST) approach to derive the easting, northing, and vertical components of the displacement vectors across the rock slope for two five-year windows, 2010–2015 and 2015–2020. Then, we perform post-processing in a GIS environment to derive displacement magnitude, trend, and plunge maps of the landslide area. Finally, we compare the ST-derived displacement data with structural lineament maps and profiles extracted from the ALS dataset. Relying on remotely sensed data, we estimate that the thickness of the slide mass is more than 100 m and displacements occur through a combination of slumping at the toe and planar sliding in the central and upper slope. Our approach provides information and interpretations that can assist in optimizing and planning fieldwork activities and site investigations at landslides in remote locations.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.790
Threshold uncertainty score0.293

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations12
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicLandslides and related hazardsFrench-language works237,207