Automated Mapping of Transportation Embankments in Fine-Resolution LiDAR DEMs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fine-resolution LiDAR DEMs can represent surface features such as road and railway embankments with high fidelity. However, transportation embankments are problematic for several environmental modelling applications, and particularly hydrological modelling. Currently, there are no automated techniques for the identification and removal of embankments from LiDAR DEMs. This paper presents a novel algorithm for identifying embankments in LiDAR DEMs. The algorithm utilizes repositioned transportation network cells as seed points in a region-growing operation. The embankment region grows based on derived morphometric parameters, including road surface width, embankment width, embankment height, and absolute slope. The technique was tested on eight LiDAR DEMs representing subsections of four watersheds in southwestern Ontario, Canada, ranging in size from 16 million cells to 134 million cells. The algorithm achieved a recall greater than or equal to 90% for seven of the eight DEMs, while achieving a Pearson’s phi correlation coefficient greater than 80% for five of the eight DEMs. Therefore, the method has moderate to high accuracy for identifying embankments. The processing times associated with applying the technique to the eight study site DEMs ranged from 1.4 s to 20.3 s, which demonstrates the practicality of using the embankment mapping tool in applications with data set sizes commonly encountered in practice.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".