MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390867776 · doi:10.5194/essd-16-75-2024

AltiMaP: altimetry mapping procedure for hydrography data

2024· article· en· W4390867776 on OpenAlexaff
Menaka Revel, Xudong Zhou, Prakat Modi, Jean-François Cretaux, Stéphane Calmant, Dai Yamazaki

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth system science data · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFlood Risk Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of Science
KeywordsDigital elevation modelTerrainAltimeterElevation (ballistics)HydrographyRemote sensingSatelliteEnvironmental scienceChannel (broadcasting)Satellite altimetryGeologyHydrology (agriculture)Computer scienceCartographyGeographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Satellite altimetry data are useful for monitoring water surface dynamics, evaluating and calibrating hydrodynamic models, and enhancing river-related variables through optimization or assimilation approaches. However, comparing simulated water surface elevations (WSEs) using satellite altimetry data is challenging due to the difficulty of correctly matching the representative locations of satellite altimetry virtual stations (VSs) to the discrete river grids used in hydrodynamic models. In this study, we introduce an automated altimetry mapping procedure (AltiMaP) that allocates VS locations listed in the HydroWeb database to the Multi-Error Removed Improved Terrain Hydrography (MERIT Hydro) river network. Each VS was flagged according to the land cover of the initial pixel allocation, with 10, 20, 30 and 40 representing river channel, land with the nearest single-channel river, land with the nearest multi-channel river and ocean pixels, respectively. Then, each VS was assigned to the nearest MERIT Hydro river reach according to geometric distance. Among the approximately 12 000 allocated VSs, most were categorized as flag 10 (71.7 %). Flags 10 and 20 were mainly located in upstream and midstream reaches, whereas flags 30 and 40 were mainly located downstream. Approximately 0.8 % of VSs showed bias, with considerable elevation differences (≥|15| m) between the mean observed WSE and MERIT digital elevation model. These biased VSs were predominantly observed in narrow rivers at high altitudes. Following VS allocation using AltiMaP, the median root mean square error of simulated WSEs compared to satellite altimetry was 7.86 m. The error rate was improved meaningfully (10.6 %) compared to that obtained using a traditional approach, partly due to bias reduction. Thus, allocating VSs to a river network using the proposed AltiMaP framework improved our comparison of WSEs simulated by the global hydrodynamic model to those obtained by satellite altimetry. The AltiMaP source code (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7597310, Revel et al., 2023a) and data (https://doi.org/10.4211/hs.632e550deaea46b080bdae986fd19156, Revel et al., 2022) are freely accessible online, and we anticipate that they will be beneficial to the international hydrological community.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.793
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.258 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarth system science dataSame topicFlood Risk Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207