Interpretation and use of geomorphometry in remote sensing: a guide and review of integrated applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An understanding of topographic surfaces and a system of geomorphometric variables underlies the effective use of Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) in remote sensing. This paper is focussed on the basic concepts and structure of geomorphometric variable types relevant to geophysical and biophysical remote sensing applications. In general, remote sensing analysts must be satisfied that there is a reasonable expectation that geomorphometric processing will benefit the remote sensing project at hand based on physical or mathematical relationships. Careful selection of local, textural, and contextual geomorphometric variables is required. The characteristics of these data can help optimize the analysis approach, which increasingly involves machine learning algorithms and Object-based DEM Analysis (OBDA) methods. Examples from the literature and a DEM of the Peterborough Drumlin Field are used to illustrate the discussion.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".