Using Multispectral Airborne LiDAR Data for Land/Water Discrimination: A Case Study at Lake Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coastal areas are environmentally sensitive and are affected by nature events and human activities. Land/water interaction in coastal areas changes over time and, therefore, requires accurate detection and frequent monitoring. Multispectral Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) systems, which operate at different wavelengths, have become available. This new technology can provide an effective and accurate solution for the determination of the land/water interface. In this context, we aim to investigate a set of point features based on elevation, intensity, and geometry for this application, followed by a presentation of an unsupervised land/water discrimination method based on seeded region growing algorithm. The multispectral airborne LiDAR sensor, the Optech Titan, was used to acquire LiDAR data at three wavelengths (1550, 1064, and 532 nm) of a study area covering part of Lake Ontario in Scarborough, Canada for testing the discrimination methods. The elevation- and geometry-based features achieved an average overall accuracy of 75.1% and 74.2%, respectively, while the intensity-based features achieved 63.9% accuracy. The region growing method succeeded in discriminating water from land with more than 99% overall accuracy, and the land/water boundary was delineated with an average root mean square error of 0.51 m. The automation of this method is restricted by having double returns from water bodies at the 532 nm wavelength.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".