MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412197979 · doi:10.3390/drones9070488

Evaluating the Potential of UAVs for Monitoring Fine-Scale Restoration Efforts in Hydroelectric Reservoirs

2025· article· en· W4412197979 on OpenAlex
Mark A. May, Nancy Shackelford, Jason Kelley, Roger Stephen, Christopher Bone

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDrones · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
Canadian institutionsPositive Living NorthUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydroelectricityScale (ratio)Environmental scienceComputer scienceEngineeringGeographyCartographyElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The construction of hydroelectric dams leads to substantial land-cover alterations, particularly through the removal of vegetation in wetland and valley areas. This results in exposed sediment that is susceptible to erosion, potentially leading to dust storms. While the reintroduction of vegetation plays a crucial role in restoring these landscapes and mitigating erosion, such efforts incur substantial costs and require detailed information to help optimize vegetation densities that effectively reduce dust storm risk. This study evaluates the performance of drones for measuring the growth of introduced low-lying grasses on reservoir beaches. A set of test flights was conducted to compare LiDAR and photogrammetry data, assessing factors such as flight altitude, speed, and image side overlap. The results indicate that, for this specific vegetation type, photogrammetry at lower altitudes significantly enhanced the accuracy of vegetation classification, permitting effective quantitative assessments of vegetation densities for dust storm risk reduction.

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.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.297 · 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