The Effect of DEM Raster Resolution on First Order, Second Order and Compound Terrain Derivatives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract It is well known that the grid cell size of a raster digital elevation model has significant effects on derived terrain variables such as slope, aspect, plan and profile curvature or the wetness index. In this paper the quality of DEMs derived from the interpolation of photogrammetrically derived elevation points in Alberta, Canada, is tested. DEMs with grid cell sizes ranging from 100 to 5 m were interpolated from 100 m regularly spaced elevation points and numerous surface‐specific point elevations using the ANUDEM interpolation method. In order to identify the grid resolution that matches the information content of the source data, three approaches were applied: density analysis of point elevations, an analysis of cumulative frequency distributions using the Kolmogorov‐Smirnov test and the root mean square slope measure. Results reveal that the optimum grid cell size is between 5 and 20 m, depending on terrain com‐plexity and terrain derivative. Terrain variables based on 100 m regularly sampled elevation points are compared to an independent high‐resolution DEM used as a benchmark. Subsequent correlation analysis reveals that only elevation and local slope have a strong positive relationship while all other terrain derivatives are not represented realistically when derived from a coarse DEM. Calculations of root mean square errors and relative root mean square errors further quantify the quality of terrain derivatives.
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 | 0.006 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".