MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Snow Water Equivalent Estimation for Flooding Warning Utilizing InSAR Technique on RCM Data

2025· article· en· W4412446190 on OpenAlexafffund
Mehdi Darvishi, Chuhong Fei, Yifeng Li, Sina Adham-Khiabani, George A. Lampropoulos

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsAUG Signals (Canada)
FundersCanadian Space Agency
KeywordsInterferometric synthetic aperture radarSnowFlooding (psychology)EstimationComputer scienceRemote sensingSynthetic aperture radarEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyGeologyGeographyEngineeringSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate estimation of snow water equivalent (SWE) is crucial for effective flood forecasting and disaster management. The paper develops a technology that can provide a reliable estimation and monitoring of snow water equivalent (SWE) for potential snowmelt flood events utilizing RADARSAT Constellation Mission compact polarimetric data. Leveraging 4-day repeat-pass interferometry, interferometric SAR (InSAR) technology was employed to estimate snow depth by analyzing SAR signal propagation delays caused by snowpack. Snow depth estimations closely aligned with ground truth measurements from nearby weather stations, demonstrating the capability of InSAR in detecting dynamic snow depth changes. Snow density was derived using a backscatter-based inversion model, enabling dynamic SWE estimation as the product of snow depth and density. The resulting SWE maps and time-series analyses showed strong correlations with weather station data, validating the accuracy and reliability of the developed methodology.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCryospheric studies and observations→French-language works237,207→