MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3042072131 · doi:10.3390/rs12142198

Automated Extraction of Visible Floodwater in Dense Urban Areas from RGB Aerial Photos

2020· article· en· W3042072131 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ying Zhang, Peter Crawford

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFlood Risk Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
FundersNatural Resources CanadaPublic Safety Canada
KeywordsRGB color modelRemote sensingEnvironmental sciencePixelAerial photosComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rapid response mapping of floodwater extents in urbanized areas, while essential for early damage assessment and rescue operations, also presents significant image interpretation challenges. Images from visible band (red–green–blue (RGB)) remote sensors are the most common and cost-effective for real-time applications. Based on an understanding of the differing characteristics of turbid floodwater and urban land surface classes, a robust method was developed and automatized to extract visible floodwater using RGB band digital numbers. The methodology was applied to delineate visible floodwater distribution from very high-resolution aerial image data acquired during the 2013 Calgary flood event. The methodology development involved segment- and pixel-based feature analysis, rule development, automated feature extraction, and result validation processing. The accuracies for the visible floodwater class were above 0.8394% and the overall accuracies were above 0.9668% at both pixel and segment levels for three test sites with diverse urban landscapes.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.860
Threshold uncertainty score0.810

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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