Evaluation of ICESat-2 Laser Altimetry for Inland Water Level Monitoring: A Case Study of Canadian Lakes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".