MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W82573235

Assessment of high resolution SAR imagery for mapping floodplain water bodies : a comparison between Radarsat-2 and TerraSAR-X

2011· dissertation· en· W82573235 on OpenAlex
Mohamed Saif Mohamed Qasim Al-Ali

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDurham e-Theses (Durham University) · 2011
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFlood Risk Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Space Agency
KeywordsRemote sensingGround truthSynthetic aperture radarFlood mythSatellite imageryEnvironmental scienceRadarRadar imagingInterferometric synthetic aperture radarCartographyComputer scienceGeographyArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Flooding is a world-wide problem that is considered as one of the most devastating natural hazards. New commercially available high spatial resolution Synthetic Aperture RADAR satellite imagery provides new potential for flood mapping. This research provides a quantitative assessment of high spatial resolution RADASAT-2 and TerraSAR-X products for mapping water bodies in order to help validate products that can be used to assist flood disaster management. An area near Dhaka in Bangladesh is used as a test site because of the large number of water bodies of different sizes and its history of frequent flooding associated with annual monsoon rainfall. Sample water bodies were delineated in the field using kinematic differential GPS to train and test automatic methods for water body mapping. SAR sensors products were acquired concurrently with the field visits; imagery were acquired with similar polarization, look direction and incidence angle in an experimental design to evaluate which has best accuracy for mapping flood water extent.
\n
\nA methodology for mapping water areas from non-water areas was developed based on radar backscatter texture analysis. Texture filters, based on Haralick occurrence and co-occurrence measures, were compared and images classified using supervised, unsupervised and contextual classifiers. The evaluation of image products is based on an accuracy assessment of error matrix method using randomly selected ground truth data. An accuracy comparison was performed between classified images of both TerraSAR-X and Radarsat-2 sensors in order to identify any differences in mapping floods. Results were validated using information from field inspections conducted in good conditions in February 2009, and applying a model-assisted difference estimator for estimating flood area to derive Confidence Interval (CI) statistics at the 95% Confidence Level (CL) for the area mapped as water. For Radarsat-2 Ultrafine, TerraSAR-X Stripmap and Spotlight imagery, overall classification accuracy was greater than 93%. Results demonstrate that small water bodies down to areas as small as 150m² can be identified routinely from 3 metre resolution SAR imagery. The results further showed that TerraSAR-X stripmap and spotlight images have better overall accuracy than RADARSAT-2 ultrafine beam modes images. The expected benefits of the research will be to improve the provision of data to assess flood risk and vulnerability, thus assisting in disaster management and post-flood recovery.
\n

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.205
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.245
Teacher spread0.223 · 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