Systematic Error Reduction in Geometric Measurements Based on Altimetric Enrichment of Geographical Features
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In most GIS software, geometric measurements (length, area) computed from the geometry of vector objects are performed in two dimensions, which generates systematic underestimates. Several reasons can explain this critical situation: two of these include deficiencies in the geometric modelling of vector data and absence of correctly implemented methods for computing measurements using altitudes. To reduce the systematic error in geometric measurements caused by the omission of altitudes, methods are proposed to (1) enrich the geometry of geographical features using external altimetric data and (2) compute length and area using altitudes. These propositions are implemented in a model that allows any GIS user to take terrain into account in the computation of length and area and estimate the underestimation involved in two-dimensional measurements. Experiments are finally performed to illustrate the functioning of the model and test the impact of the quality of several altimetric data sources. Results demonstrate that freely available digital elevation models reduce measurement error. Based on comparisons with high-resolution databases, the results also show that omitting the terrain is not sufficient to assess the entire measurement error, which is also affected by other processes, such as digitizing error and cartographic projection.
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 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".