Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Remote sensing enables us to measure fluvial systems without disrupting their dynamics. Small‐scale physical models of rivers allow us to observe their geomorphic evolution, but we need remote sensing methods to monitor these laboratory landscapes without altering their flow or topography, just as with field‐scale rivers. In this paper, we review how experimental geomorphologists have adapted remote sensing for the laboratory. We consider how remote methods to monitor model topography, flow depth, velocity and planform have been employed, enabling uninterrupted experimental evolution. We also explore the transfer of techniques between field‐scale and experimental remote sensing; the controlled conditions in the lab aided the development of some methods, while others benefited from airborne deployment. We consider recent developments offered by laboratory remote sensing, including through‐water laser scanning and adaptations of structure‐from‐motion photogrammetry; we also consider new challenges associated with these developments, such as computational power. Finally, we discuss new research problems that laboratory remote sensing is opening up to geomorphology. We hope this review will be useful for experimentalists seeking to collect data remotely, continuously and/or cost‐effectively.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".