Measuring Hyperscale Topographic Anisotropy as a Continuous Landscape Property
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several landforms are known to exhibit topographic anisotropy, defined as a directional inequality in elevation. The quantitative analysis of topographic anisotropy has largely focused on measurements taken from specific landforms, ignoring the surrounding landscape. Recent research has made progress in measuring topographic anisotropy as a distributed field in natural landscapes. However, current methods are computationally inefficient, as they require specialized hardware and computing environments, or have a limited selection of scales that undermines the feasibility and quality of multiscale analyses by introducing bias. By necessity, current methods operate with a limited set of scales, rather than the full distribution of possible landscapes. Therefore, we present a method for measuring topographic anisotropy in the landscape that has the computational efficiency required for hyperscale analysis by using the integral image filtering approach to compute oriented local topographic position (LTP) measurements, coupled with a root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) model that compares directional samples to an omnidirectional sample. Two tools were developed: One to output a scale signature for a single cell, and the other to output a raster containing the maximum anisotropy value across a range of scales. The performances of both algorithms were tested using two data sets containing repetitive, similarly sized and oriented anisotropic landforms, including a dune field and a drumlin field. The results demonstrated that the method presented has the robustness and sensitivity to identify complex hyperscale anisotropy such as nested features (e.g., a drumlin located within a valley).
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".