Mapping fault geomorphology with drone-based lidar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The advent of sub-meter resolution topographic surveying has revolutionized active fault mapping. Light detection and ranging (lidar) collected using crewed airborne laser scanning (ALS) can provide ground coverage of entire fault systems but is expensive, while Structure-from-Motion (SfM) photogrammetry from uncrewed aerial vehicles (UAVs) is popular for mapping smaller sites but cannot image beneath vegetation. Here, we present a new UAV laser scanning (ULS) system which overcomes these limitations to survey fault-related topography cost-effectively, at desirable spatial resolutions, and even beneath dense vegetation. In describing our system, data acquisition and processing workflows, we provide a practical guide for other researchers interested in developing their own ULS capabilities. We showcase ULS data collected over faults from a variety of terrain and vegetation types across the Canadian Cordillera and compare them to conventional ALS and SfM data. Due to the lower, slower UAV flights, ULS offers improved ground return density (~260 points/m2 for the capture of a paleoseismic trenching site and ~10–72 points/m2 for larger, multi-kilometer fault surveys) over conventional ALS (~3–9 points/m2) as well as better vegetation penetration than both ALS and SfM. The resulting ~20–50 cm-resolution ULS terrain models reveal fine-scale tectonic landforms that would otherwise be challenging to image.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".