MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009632224 · doi:10.1002/hyp.8167

Investigating the spatial distribution of water levels in the Mackenzie Delta using airborne LiDAR

2011· article· en· W2009632224 on OpenAlexafffund
Chris Hopkinson, N. Crasto, Philip Marsh, Donald L. Forbes, Lance F. W. Lesack

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrological Processes · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityGeological Survey of CanadaNatural Resources CanadaEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaAcadia University
FundersNational Health Research InstitutesArcticNetAurora Research Institute
KeywordsLidarDeltaHydrology (agriculture)HydraulicsChannel (broadcasting)GeologyHydraulic headRiver deltaEnvironmental scienceGeomorphologyRemote sensingPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Airborne light detection and ranging (LiDAR) data were used to map water level (WL) and hydraulic gradients (δH/δx) in the Mackenzie Delta. The LiDAR WL data were validated against eight independent hydrometric gauge measurements and demonstrated mean offsets from − 0·22 to + 0·04 m (σ< 0·11). LiDAR‐based WL gradients could be estimated with confidence over channel lengths exceeding 5–10 km where the WL change exceeded local noise levels in the LiDAR data. For the entire Delta, the LiDAR sample coverage indicated a rate of change in longitudinal gradient (δ 2 H/δx) of 5·5 × 10 −10 m m −2 ; therefore offering a potential means to estimate average flood stage hydraulic gradient for areas of the Delta not sampled or monitored. In the Outer Delta, within‐channel and terrain gradient measurements all returned a consistent estimate of − 1 × 10 −5 m m −1 , suggesting that this is a typical hydraulic gradient for the downstream end of the Delta. For short reaches (<10 km) of the Peel and Middle Channels in the middle of the Delta, significant and consistent hydraulic gradient estimates of − 5 × 10 −5 m m −1 were observed. Evidence that hydraulic gradients can vary over short distances, however, was observed in the Peel Channel immediately upstream of Aklavik. A positive elevation anomaly (bulge) of > 0·1 m was observed at a channel constriction entering a meander bend, suggesting a localized modification of the channel hydraulics. Furthermore, water levels in the anabranch channels of the Peel River were almost 1 m higher than in Middle Channel of the Mackenzie River. This suggests: (i) the channels are elevated and have shallower bank heights in this part of the delta, leading to increased cross‐delta and along‐channel hydraulic gradients; and/or (ii) a proportion of the Peel River flow is lost to Middle Channel due to drainage across the delta through anastamosing channels. This study has demonstrated that airborne LiDAR data contain valuable information describing Arctic river delta water surface and hydraulic attributes that would be challenging to acquire by other means. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.295
Threshold uncertainty score0.352

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.256
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 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

Citations36
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrological ProcessesSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207