MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7294557 · doi:10.4095/219589

The Potential of RADARSAT-2 for Crop Mapping and Assessing Crop Condition

2000· report· en· W7294557 on OpenAlexaffabout
Heather McNairn, J.J. van der Sanden, R J Brown, James Ellis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSynthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and Techniques
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCropEnvironmental scienceAgronomyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Synthetic aperture radar (SAR) research over the last two decades has confirmed that microwaves are sensitive to both soils and crop characteristics. Results using multi-temporal RADARSAT-1 imagery have confirmed that C-HH backscatter can detect differences in crop type, crop growth stage and crop indicators like crop height, biomass and leaf area index. Active microwave systems have a significant advantage over optical systems, particularly for crop monitoring, since SAR acquisitions are not impeded by cloud cover. The multi-beam modes associated with RADARSAT-1 also provide significant flexibility related to the timing, spatial resolution and incidence angle of the acquired imagery. <p> Building on the success of RADARSAT-1, the announcement of the launch of RADARSAT-2 opens up new opportunities for agriculture and land cover mapping. The multi-polarized configuration of RADARSAT-2 is likely to provide more information related to crop structure and crop condition. In preparation for the availability of RADARSAT-2 data, the Canada Centre of Remote Sensing (CCRS) has been gathering airborne multi-polarized imagery to assess the added information content of this multi-dimensional data. CCRS flew the airborne CV-580 SAR over two sites in Ontario during the 1998 and 1999 field seasons. These data are being used to address the sensitivity of multi-polarized SAR data to characteristics of corn, wheat and soybean crops. This paper provides preliminary results of this analysis.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.629

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations34
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSynthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and TechniquesFrench-language works237,207