Assessment of methods for extracting low-resolution river networks from high-resolution digital data
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
A range of methods for deriving lower-resolution river networks from higher-resolution Digital Terrain Model (DTM) data are assessed at various spatial scales.Derived flow networks are compared to fine-scale hydrologically corrected rivers using a range of performance criteria.These include a measure of spatial distance between fine-scale and derived rivers, and criteria which assess errors in derived catchment area.The Network Tracing Method (NTM), a vector-based network scheme, and the COTAT+ method, a raster-based scheme, are shown to produce river networks that most closely resemble the base fine-scale river networks.COTAT+ is better at preserving catchment areas while the NTM method is often spatially closer to the base river network, especially when applied at lower resolutions, due to a higher percentage of diagonal flow paths.Automatically derived river flow networks will only ever be as good as the base DTM or flow direction data set from which they are derived. Key words drainage network
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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