MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Flood inundation modeling in ungauged basins using Unmanned Aerial Vehicles imagery.

2020· article· en· W3102121837 on OpenAlexaff
Adel Yavari, Saeid Homayouni, Khalid Oubennaceur, Karem Chokmani

Bibliographic record

VenueEspaceINRS (National Institute for Scientific Research (Canada)) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFlood Risk Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlood mythFloodplainHydrology (agriculture)Environmental scienceDigital elevation modelStructural basinHydrographRemote sensingGeologyCartographyGeographyGeomorphologyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a new framework for floodplain inundation modeling in an ungauged basin using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) imagery. This method is based on the integrated analysis of high-resolution ortho-images and elevation data produced by the structure from motion (SfM) technology. To this end, the Flood-Level Marks (FLMs) were created from high-resolution UAV ortho-images and compared to the flood inundated areas simulated using the HEC-RAS hydraulic model. The flood quantiles for 25, 50, 100, and 200 return periods were then estimated by synthetic hydrographs using the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The proposed method was applied to UAV image data collected from the Khosban village, in Taleghan County, Iran, in the ungauged sub-basin of the Khosban River. The study area is located along one kilometre of the river in the middle of the village. The results showed that the flood inundation areas modeled by the HEC-RAS were 33%, 19%, and 8% less than those estimated from the UAV’s FLMs for 25, 50, and 100 years return periods, respectively. For return periods of 200 years, this difference was overestimated by more than 6%, compared to the UAV’s FLM. The maximum flood depth in our four proposed scenarios of hydraulic models varied between 2.33 to 2.83 meters. These analyses showed that this method, based on the UAV imagery, is well suited to improve the hydraulic modeling for seasonal inundation in ungauged rivers, thus providing reliable support to flood mitigation strategies.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.541
Threshold uncertainty score0.783

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEspaceINRS (National Institute for Scientific Research (Canada))Same topicFlood Risk Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207