Evaluating Scaling Frameworks for Multiscale Geomorphometric Analysis
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
Multiscale methods have become progressively valuable in geomorphometric analysis as data have become increasingly detailed. This paper evaluates the theoretical and empirical properties of several common scaling approaches in geomorphometry. Direct interpolation (DI), cubic convolution resampling (RES), mean aggregation (MA), local quadratic regression (LQR), and an efficiency optimized Gaussian scale-space implementation (fGSS) method were tested. The results showed that when manipulating resolution, the choice of interpolator had a negligible impact relative to the effects of manipulating scale. The LQR method was not ideal for rigorous multiscale analyses due to the inherently non-linear processing time of the algorithm and an increasingly poor fit with the surface. The fGSS method combined several desirable properties and was identified as an optimal scaling method for geomorphometric analysis. The results support the efficacy of Gaussian scale-space as a general scaling framework for geomorphometric analyses.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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