MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4298163159

Bathymetric measurement of rivers by remote sensing techniques : a review

2006· review· en· W4298163159 on OpenAlexaff
Denis Feurer, Christian Puech, Jean‐Stéphane Bailly, Alain A. Viau

Bibliographic record

VenueHAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe) · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBathymetryRemote sensingGeologyComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceOceanography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current river hydraulics or river hydrobiology models integrate 3-D measurements of the riverbed that are mainly obtained from ground topographic survey when sonar is not available. Some specific topographic methods, adapted to river constraints and to models requirements, have even been developed. Such methods allow to obtain accurate measurements of the river immersed topography. However, these methods are time-consuming and necessitate a lot of people in the field. As a consequence, the ratio cost/area covered is very high, and investigation is reduced to small parts of the river. Finally, models cannot be validated for a sufficently representative section of the river. Remote sensing has hence been tested with a view to solve this scale problem. Remote sensing is also a non-contact measurement method which allows to collect data about the river when it cannot be accessed. In this study we propose a bibliographic review of the remote sensing techniques used for river bathymetry. Frequently, these techniques had been developed for marine environment first and then transposed to riverine environments. These techniques can be divided into two types : active remote sensing, such as Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) and bathymetric LIDAR or passive remote sensing, such as through-water photogrammetry and radiometric models. A brief analysis of the scientific literature shows that the latter technique is the most used. It consists in finding a logarithmic relationship between the river depth and the values of the image spectral bands. Few references exist that deal with the other techniques, typically one or two for each. Moreover, most studies about rivers with remote sensing techniques focus on the landscape, or habitat characterization, or even deal with the dry part of the river. Our work is focused on the immersed topography. This paper proposes hence, for each depth measurement method, an explanation of the physical basis and then a review of the results obtained.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.252
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe)→Same topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications→French-language works237,207→