MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912067546 · doi:10.3390/rs11030235

Pixel-Based Geometric Assessment of Channel Networks/Orders Derived from Global Spaceborne Digital Elevation Models

2019· article· en· W2912067546 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamed Shawky, Adel Moussa, Quazi K. Hassan, Naser El‐Sheimy

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFlood Risk Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersMinistry of Economy, Trade and IndustryJapan Aerospace Exploration AgencyNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsDigital elevation modelRemote sensingShuttle Radar Topography MissionLidarInterferometric synthetic aperture radarPixelTerrainSynthetic aperture radarGeologyPanchromatic filmChannel (broadcasting)OrthophotoComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMultispectral imageGeographyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) contribute to geomorphological and hydrological applications. DEMs can be derived using different remote sensing-based datasets, such as Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) (e.g., Advanced Land Observing Satellite (ALOS) Phased Array type L-band SAR (PALSAR) and Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) DEMs). In addition, there is also the Digital Surface Model (DSM) derived from optical tri-stereo ALOS Panchromatic Remote-sensing Instrument for Stereo Mapping (PRISM) imagery. In this study, we evaluated satellite-based DEMs, SRTM (Global) GL1 DEM V003 28.5 m, ALOS DSM 28.5 m, and PALSAR DEMs 12.5 m and 28.5 m, and their derived channel networks/orders. We carried out these assessments using Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) Digital Surface Models (DSMs) and Digital Terrain Models (DTMs) and their derived channel networks and Strahler orders as reference datasets at comparable spatial resolutions. We introduced a pixel-based method for the quantitative horizontal evaluation of the channel networks and Strahler orders derived from global DEMs utilizing confusion matrices at different flow accumulation area thresholds (ATs) and pixel buffer tolerance values (PBTVs) in both ±X and ±Y directions. A new Python toolbox for ArcGIS was developed to automate the introduced method. A set of evaluation metrics—(i) producer accuracy (PA), (ii) user accuracy (UA), (iii) F-score (F), and (iv) Cohen’s kappa index (KI)—were computed to evaluate the accuracy of the horizontal matching between channel networks/orders extracted from global DEMs and those derived from LiDAR DTMs and DSMs. PALSAR DEM 12.5 m ranked first among the other global DEMs with the lowest root mean square error (RMSE) and mean difference (MD) values of 4.57 m and 0.78 m, respectively, when compared to the LiDAR DTM 12.5 m. The ALOS DSM 28.5 m had the highest vertical accuracy with the lowest recorded RMSE and MD values of 4.01 m and −0.29 m, respectively, when compared to the LiDAR DSM 28.5 m. PALSAR DEM 12.5 m and ALOS DSM 28.5 m-derived channel networks/orders yielded the highest horizontal accuracy when compared to those delineated from LiDAR DTM 12.5 m and LiDAR DSM 28.5 m, respectively. The number of unmatched channels decreased when the PBTV increased from 0 to 3 pixels using different ATs.

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.461
Threshold uncertainty score0.778

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicFlood Risk Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207