MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410521856 · doi:10.3390/glacies2020006

Surface Water Extent Extraction in Prairie Environments Using Sentinel-1 Image-Pair Coherence

2025· article· en· W4410521856 on OpenAlexaff
Peilin Chen, Grant Gunn

Bibliographic record

VenueGlacies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFlood Risk Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)Extraction (chemistry)Environmental scienceRemote sensingComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceComputer visionGeologyMathematicsStatisticsChemistryChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Knowledge of surface water extent is critical for ecological and disaster monitoring. However, surface water extraction from optical satellite imagery is challenging due to the impact of weather. Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) can penetrate cloud cover and has significant advantages for surface water mapping, but the classification accuracy might be limited by SAR’s inherent properties and land cover, which have similar backscatter to surface water. This study finds that the accuracy of surface water extraction at the Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) can be improved by combining interferometric coherence and backscatter for machine learning classification. This study performs time-series analysis on surface water and land to investigate their discrimination at different seasonal periods. The accuracy improvement of this method on Sentinel-1 images reached 10% during the seasons of fall and winter, where the combination of backscatter and coherence was proven to be efficient for separating water and land. Hence, our approaches of combining backscatter and coherence provide new insights for surface water extraction from SAR images in future studies.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.386
Threshold uncertainty score0.883

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlaciesSame topicFlood Risk Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207