Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of fractals is being widely used in several cartographic procedures such as line enhancement, surface generation, generalisation, interpolation and error esti mation. Such applications rely on the estimation of the fractional dimension (D) of lines and surfaces. Measuring D for surfaces can be achieved from contours and profiles extracted from the surface or from the variability of the surface taken as a whole. In a fractal and self-similar terrain, the values of D should be in agreement regardless of the method used. Mark and Aronson (1984) applied the variogram technique to DEM and observed sharp changes in D with scale suggesting that terrains are composed of nested structures with a highly disorganised and complex v compo nent (D=2.6) in the long range and a smooth component (D= 2.2) in the short range. The high dimensions may not re flect the terrain itself but be the result of combining residual anisotropic effects at long distances. Tests per formed on DEM (or portions of DEM) show that the short range dimensions of the surface variogram are consistent with those extracted from profiles and contours (2.0-=D< 2.3). Systematic variations of D with altitude and loca tion were also observed indicating a lack of self-similar ity in spite of the apparent self-similarity of the sur face variogram.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".