MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7097543499

A COMPARISON BETWEEN CANADIAN DIGITAL ELEVATION DATA (CDED) AND SRTM DATA OF MOUNT CARLETON IN NEW BRUNSWICK (CANADA)

2011· article· en· W7097543499 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShuttle Radar Topography MissionDigital elevation modelElevation (ballistics)TerrainMountVegetation (pathology)AltimeterSatellite
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Digital elevation models (DEM) are basic part of the information about an area. Knowledge about DEM quality is important for their use in management projects, engineering projects and geomorphologic studies. Errors and imprecision of DEM can impact a lot on the resulting models one makes or uses in a project. It’s essential to have accurate topographical information from a DEM.The Centre for Topographic Information (CIT) of Natural Resources Canada produced a particular DEM for the Canada country. These are called Canadian Digital Elevation Data (CDED). The CDED DEM has been used for many types of studies and projects mostly in Canada.The relative accuracy of Canadian Digital Elevation Data of Mount Carleton was assessed using Shuttle Radar Topographic Mission (SRTM) model and profiles/points from Geoscience Laser Altimeter System (GLAS) onboard ICESat. This relative accuracy was examined as a function of surface slope and land cover. Specifically, we analyzed the effect of slope and vegetation type on topographic information (elevation).The particularity of Mount Carleton is that Mount Carleton is the highest mountain in the Maritimes Provinces with the peak at 817 meters and it’s heavily wooded. More than 50 % of the vegetation is dominated by coniferous trees and the average slope is 5.45 ° ± 4.72°. Terrain was segmented into three sloping regions ( ≤ 5°, 5 ° < slope < 15°,> 15°), and also was segmented to aspect regions, standardized to eight geographical directions.From the correlation between CDED and SRTM, we founded a systematic error of less than 2.0 m in absolute value with a standard deviation of around 16 m. We observed that those values are slope-dependent and the influence of their orientation is not significative. A relative influence is observed for the north directions. The broadleaf is the species which has the highest concentration of errors and the obtained rootmean-square

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.246

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications→French-language works237,207→