Landslide Monitoring with RADARSAT Constellation Mission InSAR, RPAS-Derived Point-Clouds and RTK-GNSS Time-Series in the Thompson River Valley, British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this paper, we evaluate the effectiveness of four land-deformation measurement techniques for monitoring slow-moving landslides along a high-risk section of the national railway corridor traversing the Thompson River valley, British Columbia, Canada. The geomorphically active North Slide acts as an ideal field laboratory for testing and evaluating novel monitoring techniques and methods. We compare differential processing of Structure from Motion (SfM) products such as point-cloud elevation models and orthophotos derived from Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS), along with satellite based Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) deformation measurements derived from RADARSAT Constellation Mission (RCM). These results are ground-truthed with periodic real-time kinematic (RTK) global navigation satellite system (GNSS) measurements. We evaluate point-cloud comparison techniques, including the multi-scale model-to-model cloud comparison (M3C2) algorithm and digital ortho image correlation techniques. Multi-temporal RCM InSAR deformation measurements are processed using a semi-automated processing system for interferogram generation and unwrapping. Manual processing of small baseline subsets (SBAS) leads to the recovery of 1-dimensional line-of-sight (LoS) and 2-dimensional deformation measurements. Lastly, we discuss the strengths and limitations of these techniques, considerations for interpreting their outputs, and considerations for direct comparisons between InSAR, RPAS and RTK-GNSS deformation measurements.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".