Catchment‐scale mapping of surface grain size in gravel bed rivers using airborne digital imagery
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study develops and assesses two methods for estimating median surface grain sizes using digital image processing from centimeter‐resolution airborne imagery. Digital images with ground resolutions of 3 cm and 10 cm were combined with field calibration measurements to establish predictive relationships for grain size as a function of both local image texture and local image semivariance. Independently acquired grain size data were then used to assess the algorithm performance. Results showed that for the 3 cm imagery both local image semivariance and texture are highly sensitive to median grain size, with semivariance being a better predictor than image texture. However, in the case of 10 cm imagery, sensitivity of image semivariance and texture to grain size was poor, and this scale of imagery was found to be unsuitable for grain size estimation. This study therefore demonstrates that local image properties in very high resolution digital imagery allow for automated grain size measurement using image processing and remote sensing methods.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it