MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974523270 · doi:10.1117/12.564924

Design description and field testing of the SHOALS-1000T airborne bathymeter

2004· article· en· W1974523270 on OpenAlexaff
P. E. LaRocque, J. Banic, Alexander Cunningham

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsOptech (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShoalBathymetryHydrographyRemote sensingLidarField (mathematics)Hydrographic surveyMarine engineeringComputer scienceOceanographyGeographyGeologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The SHOALS-1000T is the first generation of coastal mapping systems which incorporates both airborne lidar bathymetric (ALB) and airborne topographic subsystems. Its predecessor, the SHOALS (Scanning Hydrographic Operational Airborne Lidar Survey) system went operational in 1994 and was retired in 2003 after a history of successful worldwide surveys. The SHOALS-1000T has 2.5 times the data collection rate of the previous SHOALS system and yet is about one-third the size and consumes about half the power. A description of the system design will be given, along with a summary of extensive field testing carried out in Florida in August of 2003. It will be shown that despite the reduction in size and power requirements, the basic system performance matched the previous system very well. The increased collection rate also increases other capabilities such as target detection. The addition of a digital camera has enhanced the SHOALS-1000T system as a premier coastline mapping tool.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.004

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 head0.213
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations17
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207