MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400410305 · doi:10.1080/19475705.2024.2364777

A low-cost IoT-based deep learning method of water gauge measurement for flood monitoring

2024· article· en· W4400410305 on OpenAlexaff
Leila Hashemi-Beni, Megha Puthenparampil, Ali Jamali

Bibliographic record

VenueGeomatics Natural Hazards and Risk · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFlood Risk Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternet of ThingsFlood mythComputer scienceGauge (firearms)Deep learningEnvironmental scienceReal-time computingRemote sensingArtificial intelligenceEmbedded systemGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Real-time and accurate measurement of the water level is a critical step in flood monitoring and management of water resources. In recent years, with the advent of the Internet of Things (IoTs) and cloud computing platforms and resources, the surveillance technology for water monitoring has been revolutionized due to the availability of high-resolution and portable cameras, robust image processing techniques, and cloud-enabled data fusion centers. However, despite the potential advantages of online water level monitoring of the rivers and lakes, some technical challenges need to be addressed before they can be fully utilized. Submersible sensor devices are frequently used for measuring water levels but are prone to damage from sediment deposition and many gauge detection techniques are inefficient at nighttime. In response, this paper presents a novel Internet of Things (IoT) based deep learning methodology that uses Mask-RCNN to accurately segment gauges from images even when there are distortions present. An automated and immediate water stage estimate is provided by this simple, low-cost method. The methodology’s applicability to water resource management systems and flood disaster prevention engineering opens up new possibilities for the deployment of intelligent IoT-based flood monitoring systems in the future.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.461

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.255 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations14
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeomatics Natural Hazards and RiskSame topicFlood Risk Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207