Comparing alpine watershed attributes from LiDAR, photogrammetric, and contour-based DEMs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As part of an alpine hydrological study in the Canadian Rocky Mountains, three digital elevation model (DEM) data sets were obtained for the purpose of watershed characterization. The data sources were: (1) archived public access BC TRIM (Terrain Resource Information Management) 1: 20 000 contour vectors; (2) stereo aerial photography DEM with a derived point spacing between 5 m and 20 m; (3) airborne LiDAR (light detection and ranging) with point spacing from 1 m to 4 m. GIS layers of terrain and watershed attributes were created for each of the three DEM data sets at grid cell resolutions of 5 m and 25 m. Watershed attributes investigated were: DEM elevation, area, hypsometry, and stream network topology. In areas of lower relief and forest cover, the TRIM contour DEM contained topological errors at both 5 m and 25 m resolutions due to the poor representation of terrain from widely spaced contours. The photo DEM introduced obvious stream topology errors at 25 m due to the inability of the photo DEM to discern subtle terrain beneath forest canopies. The photo and TRIM DEMs overestimated basin hypsometry relative to the LiDAR watersheds at highest elevations due, in part, to their inability to represent the inside of gullies and steps associated with geological strata. In the case of the photo DEM, selectively digitizing break lines such as cliff edges, while missing shadowed areas, led to the creation of an interpolated surface that was biased towards the outer extremities of the terrain. Conversely, relative to the photo-based datasets, the LiDAR DEM better captured the inside of gullies and steps while under-sampling break line features, leading to a bias in the interpolated surface towards internal terrain
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".