MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1834458353 · doi:10.4000/geomorphologie.10992

Digital Elevation Model of coastal and flood plains obtained from vector data: an alternative method applied to the Coatzacoalcos fluvial plain (Mexico)

2015· article· en· W1834458353 on OpenAlexaff
Carolina Ramírez-Núñez, Jean‐François Parrot

Bibliographic record

VenueGéomorphologie relief processus environnement · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsTellabs (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDigital elevation modelLidarElevation (ballistics)Flood mythRemote sensingFluvialTerrainMean squared errorFloodplainGeologyGeographyCartographyGeomorphologyMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vector data can be used to generate Digital Elevation Models (DEMs), but in the case of fluvial and coastal plains, according to topographical constrains, the interpolation requires other types of intervention to achieve a result of quality. For Mexico, neither data base check points nor LiDAR Digital Terrain Models (DTMs) are available for such areas, so that vector data are frequently used to generate DEMs. This lack of information led us to propose a method to obtain an alternative DEM by using the available vector data, especially because these fluvial and coastal plains are frequently affected by floods. The RMSE (root mean square error) as well as the standard deviation of the generated DEM are lower (0.0074 and 0.0059) than for the LiDAR DTM (0.0945 and 0.0793). On the other hand, the validation is also based on the comparison of flood simulation applied to the resulting DEM and the corresponding LiDAR DTM. The area covered by the simulated flood is 716.63 km2 for the resulting DEM; meanwhile, an area of 787.82 km2 is obtained using LiDAR DTM. Concerning the volume, this is 1.02 km3 for the DEM and 0.86 km3 for the LiDAR DTM.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.301
Threshold uncertainty score0.824

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.001
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGéomorphologie relief processus environnementSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207