1,721,024 research outputs found

    Advanced low- and full-resolution DInSAR map generation for slow-moving landslide analysis at different scales

    No full text
    A proper analysis of slow-moving landslides calls for several efforts aiming at their characterization and mapping. Considering the uncertainties related to the landslide inventory maps the integration of conventional techniques with remote sensing data, such as differential SAR interferometry (DInSAR), can furnish a valuable contribution in a number of case studies. However, standardized procedures for the interpretation and the confident use of DInSAR data, according to landslide zoning developments, have not been fully investigated and validated, although algorithms for image processing have become more and more sophisticated. This work addresses a new methodology for the use of DInSAR data, at both full- and low-resolutions, in landslide analyses at different scales via the integration of remote sensing data with simple geomorphological models and geometric considerations. The methodology is tested inside a well documented area in Central–Southern Italy where an advanced dataset on base and thematic maps is available

    The contribution of DInSAR techniques for slow-moving landslide characterization

    No full text
    This work shows the potential of innovative procedures for the slow-moving landslide characterization at different scales. Particularly, the procedures are based on the joint use of data obtained via Differential SAR Interferometry (DInSAR) remote sensing techniques, at both full- and low-resolution, the kinematic of the landslides and the landslideinduced damage to structures/infrastructures

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    Full text link
    The present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
    corecore