MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1906076360

Improving overland flow routing by incorporating ancillary road data into Digital Elevation Models

2003· article· en· W1906076360 on OpenAlexaffabout
Guy Duke, S. W. Kienzle, Dan L. Johnson, James Byrne

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDigital elevation modelCulvertSurface runoffFlow routingRouting (electronic design automation)WatershedHydrology (agriculture)DitchElevation (ballistics)GridEnvironmental scienceFlow (mathematics)GeographyComputer scienceRemote sensingGeologyEngineeringGeotechnical engineeringEcology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Roads, ditches, and culverts influence hydrological and geomorphological processes significantly. However, most hydrological models continue to rely solely on regional digital elevation models (DEMs) to derive overland flow directions even though these DEMs have been shown to contain inadequate topographical information to effectively represent linear landscape features. This paper introduces a methodology that improves the accuracy of grid-based overland flow routing through the use of ancillary road, ditch, and culvert data. The road enforcement algorithm (REA) that was developed re-routes overland flow on either side of a road independently, thereby enforcing linear landscape features within the flow direction matrix. The overland flow patterns resulting from the implementation of the REA differ significantly from flow patterns derived using conventional GIS routing algorithms. A test application in the prairies of southern Alberta, Canada shows the REA affects intra-watershed runoff transport as well as the size and shape of DEM-derived watersheds. The flow direction matrices created with the REA can be incorporated into any grid-based hydrological model.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.892
Threshold uncertainty score0.406

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 communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations77
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207