Cited by 15Urban Design and Spatial AnalysisArchaeological Research and ProtectionUrban Transport and Accessibility

Walking the ridgeway revisited: the methodological and theoretical implications of scale dependency for the derivation of slope and the calculation of least-cost pathways

Open access
(:Unkn) Unknown·2010·Universitätsbibliothek Tübingen

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.15496/publikation-3304

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Unknown, (.
Venue
Universitätsbibliothek Tübingen
Publisher
Universitätsbibliothek Tübingen
Published
2010
OpenAlex
W2754279748
Cited by
15
References
5
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
Type
other
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Universitätsbibliothek Tübingen
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Urban Design and Spatial Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Space and Planetary Science › Archaeological Research and Protection
  • Social Sciences › Transportation › Urban Transport and Accessibility
Keywords
Ridgeway, scale dependence, landscape analysis, terrain analysis, methodological implications, theoretical implications

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.

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