MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2173814343 · doi:10.1139/juvs-2015-0026

Water resource management at catchment scales using lightweight UAVs: current capabilities and future perspectives

2015· article· en· W2173814343 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Leon DeBell, Karen Anderson, Richard E. Brazier, Nicholas King, Lindsey Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Environment Research Council
KeywordsSoftware deploymentComputer scienceSystems engineeringContext (archaeology)Process (computing)Resource (disambiguation)Scale (ratio)Key (lock)Environmental scienceEngineeringSoftware engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lightweight, portable unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or ‘drones’ are set to become a key component of a water resource management (WRM) toolkit, but are currently not widely used in this context. In practical WRM there is a growing need for fine-scale responsive data, which cannot be delivered from satellites or aircraft in a cost-effective way. Such a capability is needed where water supplies are located in spatially heterogeneous dynamic catchments. In this review, we demonstrate the step change in hydrological process understanding that could be delivered if WRM employed UAVs. The paper discusses a range of pragmatic concepts in UAV science for cost-effective and practical WRM, from choosing the right sensor and platform combination through to practical deployment and data processing challenges. The paper highlights that multi-sensor approaches, such as combining thermal imaging with fine-scale structure-from-motion topographic models, are currently best placed to assist in WRM decision-making because they provide a means of monitoring the spatio-temporal distribution of sources, sinks, and flows of water through landscapes. The manuscript highlights areas where research is needed to support the integration of UAVs into practical WRM, for example, in improving positional accuracy through integration of differential global positioning system sensors, and developing intelligent control of UAV platforms to optimize the accuracy of spatial data capture.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations82
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Unmanned Vehicle SystemsSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207