MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409211419 · doi:10.3390/w17071098

Evaluation of ICESat-2 Laser Altimetry for Inland Water Level Monitoring: A Case Study of Canadian Lakes

2025· article· en· W4409211419 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yunus Kaya

Bibliographic record

VenueWater · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsWater levelAltimeterEnvironmental scienceSatellite altimetryRemote sensingOceanographyGeographyGeologyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study evaluates the performance of the ICESat-2 ATL13 altimetry product for estimating water levels in 182 Canadian lakes by integrating satellite-derived observations with in situ gauge measurements and applying spatial filtering using the HydroLAKES dataset. The analysis compares ATL13-derived lake surface elevations with hydrometric data from national monitoring stations, providing a robust framework for assessing measurement accuracy. Statistical metrics—including root mean square error (RMSE), mean absolute error (MAE), and mean bias error (MBE)—are employed to quantify discrepancies between the datasets. Importantly, the application of HydroLAKES-based filtering reduces the mean RMSE from 1.53 m to 1.40 m, and the further exclusion of high-error lakes lowers it to 0.96 m. Larger and deeper lakes exhibit lower error margins, while smaller lakes with complex shorelines show greater variability. Regression analysis confirms the excellent agreement between satellite and gauge measurements (R2 = 0.9999; Pearson’s r = 0.9999, n = 182 lakes, p < 0.0001). Temporal trends reveal declining water levels in 134 lakes and increasing levels in 48 lakes from 2018 to 2024, potentially reflecting climatic variability and human influence. These findings highlight the potential utility of ICESat-2 ATL13 altimetry for large-scale inland water monitoring when combined with spatial filtering techniques such as HydroLAKES.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.581
Threshold uncertainty score0.946

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWaterSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207