Scale-dependent recursive analysis of topographical roughness: A methodology for differentiating geological and geomechanical features from point cloud data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exposed rock surfaces reflect diverse topographical features shaped by underlying geological and geomechanical conditions, such as mineral composition, weathering, excavation methods, and structural geology . These features directly influence the mechanical behavior of in-place materials, providing a robust basis for differentiating geological and geomechanical units in engineering. Their explicit spatial differentiation relies on time-consuming and subjective visual assessments, or the inefficient and difficult to reproduce measurement of topographical features (e.g., roughness, undulation) at arbitrary scales. This work aims to offer an objective, reproducible, and efficient topographical analysis framework to differentiate geological and geomechanical features arising from natural and man-made origins. This study introduces a scale-dependent recursive analysis method to systematically evaluate and characterize roughness conditions of exposed rock surfaces. By analyzing point clouds across multiple scales, the method derives scale-dependent trends and computes parameters that distinguish topographical features associated with specific geological and operational settings. A moving-window algorithm is applied as a second layer of analysis to capture localized trends, integrating these as an explicit scalar field within point clouds for direct differentiation of features. This methodology improves accuracy and efficiency compared to traditional roughness measurement techniques by reducing biases and subjectivity associated with visual-based assessments. The approach is demonstrated using four datasets from diverse geological and geomechanical contexts, showcasing its applicability and the insights gained. The influence of point cloud density and moving-window size on the recursive analysis is further discussed, highlighting the method's potential to provide objective and quantifiable topographical differentiation for mining, tunneling, and construction applications.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".