MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409962987 · doi:10.5194/gi-14-69-2025

Review of methodological considerations and recommendations for mapping remote glaciers from aerial photography surveys in suboptimal conditions

2025· article· en· W4409962987 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Dorota Medrzycka, Luke Copland, Laura Thomson, William Kochtitzky, Braden Smeda

Bibliographic record

VenueGeoscientific instrumentation, methods and data systems · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
FundersParks CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcGill UniversityArcticNetUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsAerial photographyGlacierRemote sensingPhotographyAerial surveyAerial photosGeographyCartographyEnvironmental sciencePhysical geographyVisual artsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. The use of structure-from-motion (SfM) photogrammetry coupled with multiview stereo (MVS) techniques is widespread as a tool for generating topographic data for monitoring change in surface elevation. However, study sites on remote glaciers and ice caps often offer suboptimal conditions, including large survey areas, complex topography, changing weather and light conditions, poor contrast over ice and snow, and reduced satellite positioning performance. Here, we provide a review of methodological considerations for conducting aerial photography surveys under challenging field conditions. We generate topographic reconstructions, outlining the entire workflow, from data acquisition to SfM–MVS processing, using case studies focused around two small glaciers in Arctic Canada. We provide recommendations for the selection of photographic and positioning hardware and guidelines for flexible survey design using direct measurements of camera positions, thereby removing the need for ground control points. The focus is on maximising hardware performance despite inherent limitations, with the aim of optimising the quality and quantity of the source data, including image information and control measurements, despite suboptimal conditions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.052
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.109
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.273

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0520.109
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0140.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0070.002
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.201
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeoscientific instrumentation, methods and data systemsSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207