MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2295827467 · doi:10.1002/esp.3888

The practice of DEM stream burning revisited

2015· article· en· W2295827467 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth Surface Processes and Landforms · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDigital elevation modelRaster graphicsGridComputer scienceHydrographyChannel (broadcasting)Grid cellScale (ratio)Remote sensingGeologyCartographyGeographyComputer graphics (images)Geodesy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Stream burning is a common flow enforcement technique used to correct surface drainage patterns derived from digital elevation models (DEM). The technique involves adjusting the elevations of grid cells that are coincident with the features of a vector hydrography layer. This paper focuses on the problematic issues with common stream burning practices, particularly the topological errors resulting from the mismatched scales of the hydrography and DEM data sets. A novel alternative stream burning method is described and tested using five DEMs of varying resolutions (1 to 30 arc‐seconds) for an extensive area of southwestern Ontario, Canada. This TopologicalBreachBurn method uses total upstream channel length (TUCL) to prune the vector hydrography layer to a level of detail that matches the raster DEM grid resolution. Network pruning reduces the occurrence of erroneous stream piracy caused by the rasterization of multiple stream links to the same DEM grid cell. The algorithm also restricts flow within individual stream reaches, further reducing erroneous stream piracy. In situations where two vector stream features occupy the same grid cell, the new tool ensures that the larger stream, designated by higher TUCL, is given priority. TUCL‐based priority minimizes the impact of the topological errors that occur during the stream rasterization process on modeled regional drainage patterns. The test data demonstrated that TopologicalBreachBurn produces highly accurate and scale‐insensitive drainage patterns and watershed boundaries. The drainage divides of four large watersheds within the study region that were delineated from the TopologicalBreachBurn ‐processed DEMs were found to be highly accurate when compared with the official watershed boundaries, even at the coarsest grid resolutions, with Kappa index of agreement values ranging from 0.952 to 0.921. The corresponding Kappa coefficient values for a traditional stream burning method ( FillBurn ) ranged from 0.953 to 0.490, demonstrating a significant decrease in mapping accuracy at coarser DEM grid resolutions. Copyright © 2015 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.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score0.146

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.224 · 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