MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412935307 · doi:10.1016/j.srs.2025.100265

Terrain complexity index: a novel metric for estimating multiscale three-dimensional terrain structure of montane areas based on digital elevation model

2025· article· en· W4412935307 on OpenAlexaff
Dexiong Teng, Jiaojun Zhu, Jin Chen, Tian Gao, Fengyuan Yu, Yirong Sun, Lizhong Yu, Yuan Zhu, Jinxin Zhang, Xinhua Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueScience of Remote Sensing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicRemote Sensing and Land Use
Canadian institutionsCampbell Scientific (Canada)
FundersKey Research and Development Program of Liaoning ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsDigital elevation modelTerrainMontane ecologyElevation (ballistics)Index (typography)Metric (unit)Remote sensingGeographyGeologyComputer sciencePhysical geographyCartographyMathematicsEcologyGeometryEngineeringWorld Wide WebBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Terrain complexity for describing the heterogenicity of terrains plays a key role in many disciplines, including geographic information science, atmospheric boundary layer meteorology, and ecology. However, due to the intrinsic relationships between terrain structure and the size or scale of the terrains, quantifying the terrain complexity faces the challenges in adequately capturing the intricate three-dimensional and multiscale features. Here, we developed a novel terrain complexity index ( TCI ) based on digital elevation models (DEMs), integrating fractal dimension ( D f ), entropy of terrain elements ( H ), rugosity ( R ), volume filling ratio ( V ), and slope ( α ) as T C I = ( D f + sin α ) H − 1 / R + V . The results showed a substantial variability in D f , H , R , and V with elevations and terrain unit sizes, which was related to feature specific and scale dependent. The terrain features ( D f , H , R , and V ) increased with the terrain unit size and tended to approach a constant value as the terrain unit size grew larger. It was found that the minimum terrain unit size for these terrain features increased with decreasing DEM resolutions (from 0.5 m to 120 m, ten levels), being well expressed as a power function of the DEM resolution ( R 2 ≥ 0.97). The minimum terrain unit size was uniquely determined using the change point detection. For example, the minimum terrain unit sizes were 140 m × 140 m and 7.56 km × 7.56 km at 0.5 m and 120 m DEM resolutions, respectively. These terrain features, based on the 30 m resolution DEM, explained 7–21 % of the variance in annual soil water erosion (ASWE) and 9–24 % of vascular plant diversity. The TCI exhibited superior predictive capabilities, outperforming individual terrain features by 2–10 % for both ASWE and vascular plant diversity. Our TCI emerges as an effective metric for quantifying the intricate three-dimensional structures of mountainous terrains, providing new insights into its influence on mountainous ecosystem structure and function.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScience of Remote SensingSame topicRemote Sensing and Land UseFrench-language works237,207