The DOI matches its Crossref record; none of the 16 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Referee comment on Velocity-Based Terrain Coefficients for Time-Based Models of Human Movement
Open accessAbstract
In many archaeological studies assessing the impact of topography on past human movement, only weak arguments without validation for the weights assigned to different terrain features are given. Therefore a study presenting terrain coefficients relying on sound tests is most welcome though the range of applications in archaeological modelling is limited. This article is a referee comment for de Gruchy, M., Caswell, E and Edwards, J. 2017 Velocity-Based Terrain Coefficients for Time-Based Models of Human Movement, Internet Archaeology.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
de Gruchy, Caswell and Edwards derive the first velocity-based terrain coefficients for time-based models of human movement, measuring walking speed rather than metabolic rate across seven terrains in County Durham and Tyneside. They find velocity-based coefficients are not interchangeable with the older metabolic-rate coefficients, and that sex and load affect some terrains but not others.
Key findings
- New time-based coefficients (relative to pavement = 1.00): lawn grass 1.03 (p=0.0165), loose beach sand 1.19 (p<0.0001), disturbed ground/former stone quarry 1.24 (p=0.0003), tall grassland 1.35 (p<0.0001), bog 1.79 (p=0.0002); the decayed asphalt/gravel path was the only terrain not significantly different from baseline.
- Velocity-based and metabolic-rate-based coefficients are not interchangeable: no simple linear model fit the two sets, and the bog had a higher coefficient than loose sand, the reverse of Soule and Goldman (1972).
- Age was not a significant factor for relative ease of movement, but sex was significant on lawn grass (men 1.067, women 1.002, p=0.03).
- A weighted pack of 30% body weight had a significant effect only on loose beach sand (weighted 1.225, unweighted 1.151, p=0.02).
Methods
- Five male and five female participants across two age categories (20–35 and 36–50) walked 200m marked routes on seven terrains at a self-selected comfortable pace, once unweighted and once carrying a backpack equal to 30% of body weight; times were recorded with stopwatch apps.
- Terrain coefficients were calculated as the proportional increase in each participant's time relative to their pavement baseline (pavement set to 1.00), following Soule and Goldman (1972).
- One-sample t-tests compared each terrain's mean coefficient against 1.0 (normality checked with q-q plots); two-sample t-tests compared group means by age, sex, and weighted/unweighted condition at a 95% significance level.
Limitations
- The paper states there are still hundreds or thousands of untested terrain types, and no studies incorporating children, elderly adults, or people with gait-altering conditions; the authors also note the age result may reflect a lack of elderly participants.
- The paper states that high winds and rain prevented some participants from completing the full range of terrain paths, requiring adjusted analysis.
- The accompanying referee comment (Herzog) notes the anonymised data were not available to the reviewer, that the t-tests assume normal distributions while comparable data suggest skewed distributions, and that variability of terrain factors is high; the authors' reply agrees that more terrain types, replication, and larger samples are needed.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
15 Sources not found · 10 Own interpretation · 1 Not checked yet · 1 Own method · 1 No basis given
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It is no surprise that walking on English lawn grass is nearly as fast as walking on pavement.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“energy expenditure of walking normally is only about 50% above that of the metabolism at rest (Saibene and Minetti 2003)”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Saibene and Minetti 2003
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The time-based terrain coefficient for grassland derived from the data given in Ciesa et al. (2014, table 6) is 1.1 (compared to walking on trails).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ciesa et al. (2014, table 6)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“So for this class of paths, the path surfaces differed from that of the surrounding landscape”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the two formulas mentioned are quite different.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the reasons given above, velocity-based terrain coefficients for grass, light or heavy brush, swampy bog and ploughed fields are probably not appropriate for LCP calculations.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: If a route was in constant use for economic purposes, the vegetation was cleared either by repeatedly walking the path or by cutting the vegetation.
In the paper
“Several prehistoric roads in wetlands have been recorded (e.g. the Eclipse track constructed by interwoven rods in Somerset, see Renfrew and Bahn 1996, 314-15).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Renfrew and Bahn 1996
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
- Probably not a substantial claim. 16
- It may state two separate claims as one. 10
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On these walks foragers probably try to avoid terrain that does not allow fast progress.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: For people moving into an unfamiliar region or foragers searching for food, the target location is not known in advance.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The design of the study to generate the data and the results presented in this article are sound.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The reasons for increased time to complete the hill walk were mainly 'cold, wet, and windy weather and deep snow underfoot' (Ainslie et al. 2002, 182).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ainslie et al. 2002, 182
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirectn = 11- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“They also refer to the formula published by Pandolf et al. (1977) that shows a quadratic relationship between metabolic rate and velocity, whereas Givoni and Goldman (1971) present a formula suggesting an exponent of 1.65 for velocity.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Pandolf et al. (1977)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Givoni and Goldman (1971)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“They report a large range for the duration of the hill walk (245-490 min), with a mean of 348 minutes.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ainslie et al. (2002)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainn = 11- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All examples given above not belonging to the two classes mentioned first are probably not time-based in a straightforward way”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This paragraph shows that the variability of most terrain factors is quite high.”
plainn = 11- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The anonymised data used for computing the new time-based terrain coefficients was not available to the reviewer.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Due to the variability of the terrain coefficients found in previous studies and owing to varying climatic, seasonal and weather conditions”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“But it is quite difficult to reconstruct the vegetation cover of past times. Often, only estimates at a global scale are available (e.g. Romanowska 2015).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Romanowska 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Calculating the energy expenditure for walking a given distance must take both the increased heart rate and the velocity into account (cf. Ainslie et al. 2002).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ainslie et al. 2002
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The main issue is the problematic application of these data in archaeological research.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Rests on an assumption: In archaeology, terrain coefficients are mainly important for modelling human expansion.
- Rests on an assumption: Most projects dealing with such models cannot afford a detailed landscape reconstruction including the climatic conditions and the vegetation.
- Rests on an assumption: It is hard to estimate the impact of the time required to pass an unfamiliar piece of land on the choice of the route taken.
In the paper
“Not all studies referred to in the caption of Table 1 agree on the terrain coefficient values: Givoni and Goldman (1971) tentatively propose the following terrain coefficients: hard-surface road 1.2 [Table 1: 1.0], ploughed field 1.5 [Table 1: 1.3], sand dunes 1.8 [Table 1: Loose sand 2.1] and hard snow 1.6 [Table 1: 1.3].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Givoni and Goldman (1971)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Renfrew and Bahn refer to a publication suggesting a radius of 1 hour's walk for a sedentary agricultural site and a radius of 2 hours' walk for hunter-gatherer sites.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Renfrew and Bahn 1996
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Ainslie et al. (2002) measured time, heart rate, energy consumption, temperature and many other values for a group of 11 subjects on a hill walk covering 12km.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ainslie et al. (2002)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainn = 11- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The quartiles given by Ciesa et al. (2014, table 6) suggest skewed distributions, and the authors of that publication apply a nonparametric test (Wilcoxon MannâWhitney test) that does not require normal distributions.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ciesa et al. (2014, table 6)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Lejeune et al. (1998) found that 'walking on sand requires 2.1 to 2.7 times more energy expenditure than does walking on a hard surface at the same speed', whereas the multiplier for running on sand is only 1.6.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Lejeune et al. (1998)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“A softer track allows a longer step (Saibene and Minetti 2003) and this compensates for any impedance by the low vegetation.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Saibene and Minetti 2003
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“For emergency planning in mountainous areas, data on the velocity of walking on trails, grassland, and forest is available elsewhere (Ciesa et al. 2014).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ciesa et al. 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For movement of hunters and gatherers some of the terrain coefficients are important.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But farmers replace the initial vegetation by pastures and ploughed fields, they mostly use paths and the arguments given above concerning LCPs apply.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
In many archaeological studies assessing the impact of topography on past human movement, only weak arguments without validation for the weights assigned to different terrain features are given.
“In many archaeological studies assessing the impact of topography on past human movement, only weak arguments without validation for the weights assigned to different terrain features are given.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Data on human movement are mainly used for two different classes of archaeological models: modelling human expansion into a region not occupied previously, and least-cost approaches such as site catchments and modelling routes in continuous use for economic purposes.
“Data on human movement are mainly used for two different classes of archaeological models:”
The paper relies on this without support.
If a route was in constant use for economic purposes, the vegetation was cleared either by repeatedly walking the path or by cutting the vegetation.
“If a route was in constant use for economic purposes, the vegetation was cleared either by repeatedly walking the path or by cutting the vegetation.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In many past farming societies, the use of wheeled vehicles and pack animals had an impact on human movement.
“Moreover, in many past farming societies, the use of wheeled vehicles and pack animals had an impact on human movement.”
The paper relies on this without support.
For people moving into an unfamiliar region or foragers searching for food, the target location is not known in advance.
“For people moving into an unfamiliar region or foragers searching for food, the target location is not known in advance.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Mostly young, healthy and adventurous people walk away from their home to find a new place to live.
“Mostly young, healthy and adventurous people walk away from their home to find a new place to live.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The grass cover found within a clearing in the forest or on meadows differs from lawn.
“But the grass cover found within a clearing in the forest or on meadows differs from lawn.”
The paper relies on this without support.
With today's climatic conditions in European countries north of the Alps, (low) grassland normally grows during the summer time and reaches the state 'tall grassland' in autumn if it is not cut.
“With today's climatic conditions in European countries north of the Alps, (low) grassland normally grows during the summer time and reaches the state 'tall grassland' in autumn if it is not cut.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In archaeology, terrain coefficients are mainly important for modelling human expansion.
“In archaeology, terrain coefficients are mainly important for modelling human expansion.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Most projects dealing with such models cannot afford a detailed landscape reconstruction including the climatic conditions and the vegetation.
“But most projects dealing with such models cannot afford a detailed landscape reconstruction including the climatic conditions and the vegetation.”
The paper relies on this without support.
It is hard to estimate the impact of the time required to pass an unfamiliar piece of land on the choice of the route taken.
“Moreover, it is hard to estimate the impact of the time required to pass an unfamiliar piece of land on the choice of the route taken.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“hard snow 1.6 [Table 1: 1.3]”
“Hard-packed snow1.6”
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
ドン, シ. (2026) · Institutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB)
Metadata
- Authors
- Rheinland, L. R. A. F. B. I., & Herzog, I.
- ORCID
- Herzog, Irmela
- Venue
- Internet Archaeology
- Publisher
- Council for British Archaeology
- Published
- 2017
- Issue
- 45
- ISSN
- 1363-5387 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2607091264
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Internet Archaeology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Archeology › Archaeological Research and Protection
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology (arts and humanities) › Archaeological and Geological Studies
- Social Sciences › Urban Studies › Urban Design and Spatial Analysis
- Keywords
- human movement, topography
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
