Robot-Assisted Measurement for Hydrologic Understanding in Data Sparse Regions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article describes the field application of small, low-cost robots for remote surface data collection and an automated workflow to support water balance computations and hydrologic understanding where water availability data is sparse. Current elevation measurement approaches, such as manual surveying and LiDAR, are costly and infrequent, leading to potential inefficiencies for quantifying the dynamic hydrologic storage capacity of the land surface over large areas. Experiments to evaluate a team of two different robots, including an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) and an unmanned surface vehicle (USV), to collect hydrologic surface data utilizing sonar and visual sensors were conducted at three different field sites within the Arkavathy Basin river network located near Bangalore in Karnataka, South India. Visual sensors were used on the UAV to capture high resolution imagery for topographic characterization, and sonar sensors were deployed on the USV to capture bathymetric readings; the data streams were fused in an automated workflow to determine the storage capacity of agricultural reservoirs (also known as ``tanks'') at the three field sites. This study suggests: (i) this robot-assisted methodology is low-cost and suitable for novice users, and (ii) storage capacity data collected at previously unmapped locations revealed strong power-type relationships between surface area, stage, and storage volume, which can be incorporated into modeling of landscape-scale hydrology. This methodology is of importance to water researchers and practitioners because it produces local, high-resolution representations of bathymetry and topography and enables water balance computations at small-watershed scales, which offer insight into the present-day dynamics of a strongly human impacted watershed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".