MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156506702 · doi:10.5558/tfc84850-6

A comparison of existing surficial hydrological data layers in a low-relief forested Ontario landscape with those derived from a LiDAR DEM

2008· article· en· W2156506702 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Tarmo K. Remmel, Kenton W Todd, J. M. Buttle

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsTrent UniversityMinistry of Natural Resources and ForestryYork University
FundersOntario Centres of Excellence
KeywordsLidarDigital elevation modelRemote sensingHydrology (agriculture)PhotogrammetryEnvironmental scienceVegetation (pathology)WatershedGeologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current provincial-extent digital elevation model (DEM) and corresponding hydrological maps for Ontario have been produced using traditional photogrammetry and aerial photograph interpretation. This process is labour-intensive and requires visual interpretation of stereo image pairs. The ground surface and small hydrological features may be inaccurately delineated in areas where vegetation is dense or the ground is otherwise shielded from aerial view. In an effort to improve and automate delineation of hydrological features, we examined the behaviour and final products of the D8 flowrouting algorithm in 2 software environments (TAS and TauDEM for ArcGIS) operating on a high spatial resolution DEM derived using canopy-penetrating light detection and ranging (LiDAR) technology in a pilot study in the Romeo Malette Forest (41.25°N, 81.50°W). Filtered LiDAR data points (5-m spacing) were interpolated using IDW, TIN, and splines, each resulting in a 2.5-m spatial resolution DEM. Results demonstrate improved realism in the characterization of surficial hydrology by LIDAR derived products as compared to applying identical algorithms on existing coarser provincial data. Benefits include the ability to represent streams of lower Strahler order to define crisp watershed boundaries, and the more accurate identification of local depressions that form potentially wet sites. This approach identifies wet sites that should be avoided during forest operations (e.g., skidder traffic) and can provide additional information for trail layout, road planning, and water crossings. By increasing the number of uses of LiDAR, the capital investment in these data becomes increasingly palatable for forest companies interested in obtaining detailed plans of their forest holdings. Key words: LiDAR, DEM, OBM, spatial resolution, interpolation, Strahler stream order, flow routing, topographic wetness

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations17
Published2008
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207