MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2989651318 · doi:10.1117/1.jrs.13.044521

Effectiveness of aerial and ISERV-ISS RGB photos for real-time urban floodwater mapping: case of Calgary 2013 flood

2019· article· en· W2989651318 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ying Zhang, Francis Canisius, Chuiqing Zhen, Boyu Feng, Peter Crawford, Lucia Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Remote Sensing · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFlood Risk Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRemote sensingRGB color modelFlood mythImage resolutionEnvironmental scienceVisualizationComputer scienceAerial imageAerial surveyArtificial intelligenceGeographyImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-resolution red-green-blue (RGB) images from remote sensors, such as those carried on aircrafts, UAVs, satellites, and the International Space Station (ISS), are cost-effective data sources for real-time emergency response applications. We describe an assessment undertaken on spectral behaviors to evaluate the effectiveness of two high-resolution RGB image datasets for mapping and monitoring of floodwater extent in dense urban areas. The assessment was as part of a case study of the Calgary 2013 flood event. The input imagery included very high-resolution aerial photos and imagery acquired with the SERVIR Environmental Research and Visualization System (ISERV) carried on the ISS. The results demonstrate the complementary nature of these two RGB image sets in providing effective urban floodwater mapping for real-time response. The aerial photos with higher spatial resolution and less atmospheric effect can provide the details about the floodwater distribution; the images from ISERV-ISS can provide the temporal variation of floodwater distribution.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.925
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Remote SensingSame topicFlood Risk Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207