Removal of artifact depressions from digital elevation models: towards a minimum impact approach
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artifact depressions in digital elevation models (DEMs) interrupt flow paths and alter drainage directions. Techniques for removing depressions should enforce continuous flow paths in a way that requires the least modification of the DEM. Impacts on the spatial and statistical distributions of elevation and its derivatives were assessed for four methods of removing depressions: (1) filling; (2) breaching; (3) a combination of filling and breaching, with breaching constrained to a maximum of two grid cells; (4) a combination of filling and breaching based on an impact reduction approach (IRA). The IRA removes each depression using either filling or breaching, depending on which method has the least impact, in terms of the number of modified cells and the mean absolute difference in the DEM. Analysis of a LiDAR DEM of a landscape on the Canadian Shield showed significant differences in the impacts among the four depression removal methods. Depression filling, a removal method that is widely implemented in geographical information system software, was found to impact terrain attributes most severely. Constrained breaching, which relies heavily on filling for larger depressions, also performed poorly. Both depression breaching and the IRA impacted spatial and statistical distributions of terrain attributes less than depression filling and constrained breaching. The most sensitive landscapes to depression removal were those that contained large (i.e. >10%) flat areas, because of the occurrence of relatively large depressions in these areas. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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 it