Quantifying Airborne Lidar Bathymetry Quality-Control Measures: A Case Study in Frio River, Texas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Airborne Lidar Bathymetry (ALB) is an advanced and effective technology for mapping water bodies and measuring water depth in relatively shallow inland and coastal zones. The concept of using light beams to detect and traverse water bodies has been around since the 1960s; however, its popularity has increased significantly in recent years with the advent of relatively affordable hardware, supplemented with potent software applications to process and analyze resulting data. To achieve the most accurate final product, which is usually a digital elevation model (DEM) of the bottom of a water body, various quality-control (QC) measures are applied during and after an airborne mission. River surveys, in particular, present various challenges, and quantifying the quality of the end product requires supplemental surveys and careful analysis of all data sets. In this article, we discuss a recent ALB survey of the Frio River in Texas and summarize the findings of all QC measures conducted. We conclude the article with suggestions for successful ALB deployments at similar survey locations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".