Materials Map

Discover the materials research landscape. Find experts, partners, networks.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Legal Notice
  • Contact

The Materials Map is an open tool for improving networking and interdisciplinary exchange within materials research. It enables cross-database search for cooperation and network partners and discovering of the research landscape.

The dashboard provides detailed information about the selected scientist, e.g. publications. The dashboard can be filtered and shows the relationship to co-authors in different diagrams. In addition, a link is provided to find contact information.

×

Materials Map under construction

The Materials Map is still under development. In its current state, it is only based on one single data source and, thus, incomplete and contains duplicates. We are working on incorporating new open data sources like ORCID to improve the quality and the timeliness of our data. We will update Materials Map as soon as possible and kindly ask for your patience.

To Graph

1.080 Topics available

To Map

977 Locations available

693.932 PEOPLE
693.932 People People

693.932 People

Show results for 693.932 people that are selected by your search filters.

←

Page 1 of 27758

→
←

Page 1 of 0

→
PeopleLocationsStatistics
Naji, M.
  • 2
  • 13
  • 3
  • 2025
Motta, Antonella
  • 8
  • 52
  • 159
  • 2025
Aletan, Dirar
  • 1
  • 1
  • 0
  • 2025
Mohamed, Tarek
  • 1
  • 7
  • 2
  • 2025
Ertürk, Emre
  • 2
  • 3
  • 0
  • 2025
Taccardi, Nicola
  • 9
  • 81
  • 75
  • 2025
Kononenko, Denys
  • 1
  • 8
  • 2
  • 2025
Petrov, R. H.Madrid
  • 46
  • 125
  • 1k
  • 2025
Alshaaer, MazenBrussels
  • 17
  • 31
  • 172
  • 2025
Bih, L.
  • 15
  • 44
  • 145
  • 2025
Casati, R.
  • 31
  • 86
  • 661
  • 2025
Muller, Hermance
  • 1
  • 11
  • 0
  • 2025
Kočí, JanPrague
  • 28
  • 34
  • 209
  • 2025
Šuljagić, Marija
  • 10
  • 33
  • 43
  • 2025
Kalteremidou, Kalliopi-ArtemiBrussels
  • 14
  • 22
  • 158
  • 2025
Azam, Siraj
  • 1
  • 3
  • 2
  • 2025
Ospanova, Alyiya
  • 1
  • 6
  • 0
  • 2025
Blanpain, Bart
  • 568
  • 653
  • 13k
  • 2025
Ali, M. A.
  • 7
  • 75
  • 187
  • 2025
Popa, V.
  • 5
  • 12
  • 45
  • 2025
Rančić, M.
  • 2
  • 13
  • 0
  • 2025
Ollier, Nadège
  • 28
  • 75
  • 239
  • 2025
Azevedo, Nuno Monteiro
  • 4
  • 8
  • 25
  • 2025
Landes, Michael
  • 1
  • 9
  • 2
  • 2025
Rignanese, Gian-Marco
  • 15
  • 98
  • 805
  • 2025

James, Mike R.

  • Google
  • 6
  • 13
  • 588

Lancaster University

in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%

Topics

Publications (6/6 displayed)

  • 2017Optimising UAV topographic surveys processed with structure-from-motion499citations
  • 2013Degassing-induced crystallization in basalts46citations
  • 2012The accuracy of photo-based structure-from-motion DEMscitations
  • 2011Quantifying degassing-driven crystal growth in basaltic lavascitations
  • 2004Viscoelastic behaviour of basaltic lavas.34citations
  • 2003Internal friction spectroscopy in Li20-2SiO2 partially crystallised glasses.9citations

Places of action

Chart of shared publication
Doleire-Oltmanns, S.
1 / 1 shared
Robson, Stuart
2 / 3 shared
Niethammer, U.
1 / 1 shared
Tuffen, Hugh
2 / 7 shared
Pinkerton, Harry
2 / 2 shared
Applegarth, Louisa
2 / 2 shared
Cashman, Katharine V.
1 / 2 shared
Müller, K.
2 / 10 shared
Pinkerton, H.
1 / 1 shared
Bagdassarov, N.
1 / 1 shared
Bagdassarov, N. S.
1 / 1 shared
Schmeling, H.
1 / 1 shared
Deubener, J.
1 / 17 shared
Chart of publication period
2017
2013
2012
2011
2004
2003

Co-Authors (by relevance)

  • Doleire-Oltmanns, S.
  • Robson, Stuart
  • Niethammer, U.
  • Tuffen, Hugh
  • Pinkerton, Harry
  • Applegarth, Louisa
  • Cashman, Katharine V.
  • Müller, K.
  • Pinkerton, H.
  • Bagdassarov, N.
  • Bagdassarov, N. S.
  • Schmeling, H.
  • Deubener, J.
OrganizationsLocationPeople

article

Optimising UAV topographic surveys processed with structure-from-motion

  • Doleire-Oltmanns, S.
  • Robson, Stuart
  • Niethammer, U.
  • James, Mike R.
Abstract

Structure-from-motion (SfM) algorithms greatly facilitate the production of detailed topographic models from photographs collected using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). However, the survey quality achieved in published geomorphological studies is highly variable, and sufficient processing details are never provided to understand fully the causes of variability. To address this, we show how survey quality and consistency can be improved through a deeper consideration of the underlying photogrammetric methods. We demonstrate the sensitivity of digital elevation models (DEMs) to processing settings that have not been discussed in the geomorphological literature, yet are a critical part of survey georeferencing, and are responsible for balancing the contributions of tie and control points. We provide a Monte Carlo approach to enable geomorphologists to (1) carefully consider sources of survey error and hence increase the accuracy of SfM-based DEMs and (2) minimise the associated field effort by robust determination of suitable lower-density deployments of ground control. By identifying appropriate processing settings and highlighting photogrammetric issues such as over-parameterisation during camera self-calibration, processing artefacts are reduced and the spatial variability of error minimised.<br/>We demonstrate such DEM improvements with a commonly-used SfM-based software (PhotoScan), which we augment with semi-automated and automated identification of ground control points (GCPs) in images, and apply to two contrasting case studies – an erosion gully survey (Taroudant, Morocco) and an active landslide survey (Super-Sauze, France). In the gully survey, refined processing settings eliminated step-like artefacts of up to ~50 mm in amplitude, and overall DEM variability with GCP selection improved from 37 to 16 mm.In the much more challenging landslide case study, our processing halved planimetric error to ~0.1 m, effectively doubling the frequency at which changes in landslide velocity could be detected. In both case studies, the Monte Carlo approach provided a robust demonstration that field effort could by substantially reduced by only deploying approximately half the number of GCPs, with minimal effect on the survey quality. To reduce processing artefacts and promote confidence in SfM-based geomorphological surveys, published results should include processing details which include the image residuals for both tie points and GCPs, and ensure that these are considered appropriately within the workflow.<br/>

Topics
  • density
  • impedance spectroscopy
  • discrete element method