MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400880183 · doi:10.3390/rs16142664

Surface Soil Moisture Estimation from Time Series of RADARSAT Constellation Mission Compact Polarimetric Data for the Identification of Water-Saturated Areas

2024· article· en· W4400880183 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Igor Zakharov, Sarah Kohlsmith, Jon Hornung, François Charbonneau, Pradeep Bobby, Mark Howell

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Moisture and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsSuncor Energy (Canada)Centre For Cold Ocean Resources Engineering
FundersSuncor Energy Incorporated
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceRemote sensingSynthetic aperture radarWater contentBackscatter (email)MoisturePolarimetryRadarSoil scienceGeologyScatteringMeteorologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Soil moisture is one of the main factors affecting microwave radar backscatter from the ground. While there are other factors that affect backscatter levels (for instance, surface roughness, vegetation, and incident angle), relative variations in soil moisture can be estimated using space-based, medium resolution, multi-temporal synthetic aperture radar (SAR). Understanding the distribution and identification of water-saturated areas using SAR soil moisture can be important for wetland mapping. The SAR soil moisture retrieval algorithm provides a relative assessment and requires calibration over wet and dry periods. In this work, relative soil moisture indicators are derived from a time series of the RADARSAT Constellation Mission (RCM) SAR compact polarimetric (CP) data over reclaimed areas of an oil sands mine in Alberta, Canada. An evaluation of the soil moisture product is performed using in situ measurements showing agreement from June to September. The surface scattering component of m-chi CP decomposition and the RL SAR products demonstrated a good agreement with the field data (low RMSE values and a perfect alignment with field-identified wetlands).

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.623
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicSoil Moisture and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207