MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118172838 · doi:10.1002/hyp.7155

Comparing alpine watershed attributes from LiDAR, Photogrammetric, and Contour‐based Digital Elevation Models

2008· article· en· W2118172838 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Chris Hopkinson, Masaki Hayashi, Derek R. Peddle

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrological Processes · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of LethbridgeUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHorizon FoundationCanadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
KeywordsDigital elevation modelLidarTerrainElevation (ballistics)WatershedRemote sensingGeologyAerial photographyPhotogrammetryOrthophotoPoint cloudTriangulated irregular networkGeographyCartographyArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceGeometryComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract As part of an alpine hydrological study in the Canadian Rocky Mountains, three digital elevation model (DEM) data sets were obtained for the purpose of watershed characterization. The data sources were: (1) archived public access BC TRIM (Terrain Resource Information Management) 1:20 000 contour vectors; (2) stereo aerial photography DEM with a derived point spacing between 5 m and 20 m; (3) airborne LiDAR (light detection and ranging) with point spacing from 1 m to 4 m. GIS layers of terrain and watershed attributes were created for each of the three DEM data sets at grid cell resolutions of 5 m and 25 m. Watershed attributes investigated were: DEM elevation, area, hypsometry, and stream network topology. In areas of lower relief and forest cover, the TRIM contour DEM contained topological errors at both 5 m and 25 m resolutions due to the poor representation of terrain from widely spaced contours. The photo DEM introduced obvious stream topology errors at 25 m due to the inability of the photo DEM to discern subtle terrain beneath forest canopies. The photo and TRIM DEMs overestimated basin hypsometry relative to the LiDAR watersheds at highest elevations due, in part, to their inability to represent the inside of gullies and steps associated with geological strata. In the case of the photo DEM, selectively digitizing break lines such as cliff edges, while missing shadowed areas, led to the creation of an interpolated surface that was biased towards the outer extremities of the terrain. Conversely, relative to the photo‐based datasets, the LiDAR DEM better captured the inside of gullies and steps while under‐sampling break line features, leading to a bias in the interpolated surface towards internal terrain extremities. As would be expected, the quality and resolution of the terrain data increased from BC TRIM to photo to LiDAR. If modelling watersheds within the Canadian Rockies at the meso scale and above, BC TRIM (or equivalent) 1:20 000 contour vectors would be most appropriate given availability and cost considerations. The benefits of LiDAR are apparent if higher resolution and more accurate watershed attribute information is needed detailing first‐order hydrological channel features on steep shadowed mountain slopes or zero‐order hill‐slope depressions beneath forest canopies. Such landscape features provide preferential storages for winter snowpack in mountainous watersheds, suggesting that in the future LiDAR might be a tool of choice for snowpack resource monitoring in these regions. Copyright © 2008 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 score0.405
Threshold uncertainty score0.628

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.170 · 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

Citations52
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrological ProcessesSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207