An Overview of Shoreline Mapping by Using Airborne LiDAR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the shorelines are important geographical boundaries, monitoring shoreline change plays an important role in integrated coastal management. With the evolution of remote sensing technology, many studies have used optical images to measure and to extract shoreline. However, some factors limit the use of optical imaging on shoreline mapping. Considering that the airborne LiDAR data can provide more accurate topographical information, there are some studies that have been investigated using airborne LiDAR to map shorelines. However, a literature review that combines airborne LiDAR with shoreline measurement and extracting methods has not yet been conducted. The motivation of this paper is to present a narrative review of shoreline mapping by using airborne LiDAR, including a laser scanning system, data availability, and current extraction techniques over the past two decades. Therefore, we conducted a broad search and finally summarized more than 130 articles on airborne LiDAR technology for shoreline measurement and shoreline extraction. We find that shoreline mapping by using airborne LiDAR still meets the challenge, such as objective condition limitations, data availability limitations, and self-characteristic limitations. The current method of shoreline extraction has a great potential to be improved; particularly when combined with the emerging current state-of-the-art LiDAR point cloud processing techniques (e.g., deep-learning algorithms), they will have a brighter future. This review paper provides an overview and the current trend of shoreline mapping using airborne LiDAR, and points out the limitations, challenges, and future opportunities. Moreover, it also can serve as a starting point for novices and experts to study the shoreline mapping by using airborne LiDAR, which provides a scientific support for studying shoreline changes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".