Scale-Optimized Surface Roughness for Topographic Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surface roughness is a terrain parameter that has been widely applied to the study of geomorphological processes. One of the main challenges in studying roughness is its highly scale-dependent nature. Determining appropriate mapping scales in topographically heterogenous landscapes can be difficult. A method is presented for estimating multiscale surface roughness based on the standard deviation of surface normals. This method utilizes scale partitioning and integral image processing to isolate scales of surface complexity. The computational efficiency of the method enables high scale sampling density and identification of maximum roughness for each grid cell in a digital elevation model (DEM). The approach was applied to a 0.5 m resolution LiDAR DEM of a 210 km2 area near Brantford, Canada. The case study demonstrated substantial heterogeneity in roughness properties. At shorter scales, tillage patterns and other micro-topography associated with ground beneath forest cover dominated roughness scale signatures. Extensive agricultural land-use resulted in 35.6% of the site exhibiting maximum roughness at micro-topographic scales. At larger spatial scales, rolling morainal topography and fluvial landforms, including incised channels and meander cut banks, were associated with maximum surface roughness. This method allowed for roughness mapping at spatial scales that are locally adapted to the topographic context of each individual grid cell within a DEM. Furthermore, the analysis revealed significant differences in roughness characteristics among soil texture categories, demonstrating the practical utility of locally adaptive, scale-optimized roughness.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".