MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7008118304

An assessment of the potential for cloud computing and satellite thermal infrared sensing to produce meaningful river temperature insights for hydropower operations

2021· other· en· W7008118304 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNottingham ePrints (University of Nottingham) · 2021
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydropowerCloud computingSatellitePython (programming language)Thermal infraredHydrology (agriculture)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hydropower interacts heavily with river temperature to; meet regulations, maximise profits, and maintain dam safety. Often the operational decisions that dictate this interaction are made without monitoring of river temperature, and so it is proposed that satellite remote sensing may provide a quasi-regular cost-effective method to improve this. This dissertation assesses the viability of using Google Earth Engine cloud computing and Landsat 8 Thermal Infrared satellite measurements to provide actionable insights for hydropower managers. The method was tested in three large rivers (the Saint John River in Canada, the Colorado River in the USA, and the Ganges in India) to assess transferability. No previous study has attempted to extract river temperature from multiple sites in a single study. Three different methods were tested to find the most accurate atmospheric correction algorithm for the task of river temperature measurement. The Statistical Mono-Window algorithm was found to produce the most accurate comparison to kinetic temperature loggers on the Saint John River (±2oc) with a R2 value of 0.96 (n=40, p<0.001). However, this method was not transferable to the Colorado River indicating application in rivers without validation data should be carried out with caution. A Python Package named SatTemp (Valman, 2021b) was developed to assist hydropower operators in implementing the method along with a dashboard app to disseminate results (Valman, 2021a). Concerns were raised with the “black box” nature of Google Earth Engine and this App, meaning that errors and nuances in the method may be missed. These would need to be addressed before this method can be provided to hydropower operators.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.847
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.263 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNottingham ePrints (University of Nottingham)French-language works237,207