Modelling surface drainage patterns in altered landscapes using LiDAR
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
The detailed topographic information contained in light detection and ranging (LiDAR) digital elevation models (DEMs) can present significant challenges for modelling surface drainage patterns. These data frequently represent anthropogenic infrastructure, such as road embankments and drainage ditches. While LiDAR DEMs can improve estimates of catchment boundaries and surface flow paths, modelling efforts are often confounded difficulties associated with incomplete representation of infrastructure. The inability of DEMs to represent embankment underpasses (e.g. bridges, culverts) and the problems with existing automated techniques for dealing with these problems can lead to unsatisfactory results. This is often dealt with by manually modifying LiDAR DEMs to incorporate the effects of embankment underpasses. This paper presents a new DEM pre-processing algorithm for removing the artefact dams created by infrastructure in sites of embankment underpasses as well as enforcing flow along drainage ditches. The application of the new algorithm to a large LiDAR DEM of a site in Southwestern Ontario, Canada, demonstrated that the least-cost breaching method used by the algorithm could reliably enforce drainage pathways while minimizing the impact to the original DEM.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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