MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988540337 · doi:10.3390/ijgi1020108

Visualization of Lake Mead Surface Area Changes from 1972 to 2009

2012· article· en· W1988540337 on OpenAlexaff
K. Wayne Forsythe, Barbara Schatz, Stephen Swales, Lisa-Jen Ferrato, David M. Atkinson

Bibliographic record

VenueISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSatellitePeriod (music)Satellite imagerySurface waterPhysical geographyHydrology (agriculture)GeologyEnvironmental scienceGeographyRemote sensing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For most of the last decade, the south-western portion of the United States has experienced a severe and enduring drought. This has caused serious concerns about water supply and management in the region. In this research, 30 orthorectified Landsat satellite images from the United States Geological Service (USGS) Earth Explorer archive were analyzed for the 1972 to 2009 period. The images encompassed Lake Mead (a major reservoir in this region) and were examined for changes in water surface area. Decadal lake area minimums/maximums were achieved in 1972/1979, 1981/1988, 1991/1998, and 2009/2000. The minimum lake area extent occurred in 2009 (356.4 km2), while the maximum occurred in 1998 (590.6 km2). Variable trends in water level and lake area were observed throughout the analysis period, however progressively lower values were observed since 2000. The Landsat derived lake areas show a very strong relationship with actual measured water levels at the Hoover Dam. Yearly water level variations at the dam vary minimally from the satellite derived estimates. A complete (yearly) record of satellite images may have helped to reduce the slight deviations in the time series.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.376
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.242 · 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.

Study designObservational
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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueISPRS International Journal of Geo-InformationSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207