Accuracy of snow depth estimation in mountain and prairie environments by an unmanned aerial vehicle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Quantifying the spatial distribution of snow is crucial to predict and assess its water resource potential and understand land–atmosphere interactions. High-resolution remote sensing of snow depth has been limited to terrestrial and airborne laser scanning and more recently with application of structure from motion (SfM) techniques to airborne (manned and unmanned) imagery. In this study, photography from a small unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) was used to generate digital surface models (DSMs) and orthomosaics for snow cover at a cultivated agricultural Canadian prairie and a sparsely vegetated Rocky Mountain alpine ridgetop site using SfM. The accuracy and repeatability of this method to quantify snow depth, changes in depth and its spatial variability was assessed for different terrain types over time. Root mean square errors in snow depth estimation from differencing snow-covered and non-snow-covered DSMs were 8.8 cm for a short prairie grain stubble surface, 13.7 cm for a tall prairie grain stubble surface and 8.5 cm for an alpine mountain surface. This technique provided useful information on maximum snow accumulation and snow-covered area depletion at all sites, while temporal changes in snow depth could also be quantified at the alpine site due to the deeper snowpack and consequent higher signal-to-noise ratio. The application of SfM to UAV photographs returns meaningful information in areas with mean snow depth > 30 cm, but the direct observation of snow depth depletion of shallow snowpacks with this method is not feasible. Accuracy varied with surface characteristics, sunlight and wind speed during the flight, with the most consistent performance found for wind speeds < 10 m s−1, clear skies, high sun angles and surfaces with negligible vegetation cover.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".