LiDAR Validation of a Video-Derived Beachface Topography on a Tidal Flat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasingly used shore-based video stations enable a high spatiotemporal frequency analysis of shoreline migration. Shoreline detection techniques combined with hydrodynamic conditions enable the creation of digital elevation models (DEMs). However, shoreline elevations are often estimated based on nearshore process empirical equations leading to uncertainties in video-based topography. To achieve high DEM correspondence between both techniques, we assessed video-derived DEMs against LiDAR surveys during low energy conditions. A newly installed video system on a tidal flat in the St. Lawrence Estuary, Atlantic Canada, served as a test case. Shorelines were automatically detected from time-averaged (TIMEX) images using color ratios in low energy conditions synchronously with mobile terrestrial LiDAR during two different surveys. Hydrodynamic (waves and tides) data were recorded in-situ, and established two different cases of water elevation models as a basis for shoreline elevations. DEMs were created and tested against LiDAR. Statistical analysis of shoreline elevations and migrations were made, and morphological variability was assessed between both surveys. Results indicate that the best shoreline elevation model includes both the significant wave height and the mean water level. Low energy conditions and in-situ hydrodynamic measurements made it possible to produce video-derived DEMs virtually as accurate as a LiDAR product, and therefore make an effective tool for coastal managers.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".