Bibliographic record
Abstract
This Special Issue on GIS and public health is the result of a highly selective process, which saw the participation of some 20 expert peer-reviewers and led to the acceptance of one half of the high-quality submissions received over the past year. Many threads link these papers to each other and, indeed, to our original call for papers, but the element that most clearly emerges from these works is the inextricable connection between public health and the environment. Indeed, GIS analysis of public health simply cannot disregard the geospatial dimension of environmental resources and risks. What consistently emerges from these analyses is that current geospatial research can only scratch the surface of the complex interactions of spatial resources, risks, and public health. In today’s world, or at least in the developed world, researchers and practitioners can count on virtually endless data, on inexpensive computational power, and on seamless connectivity. In this research environment, these papers point to the need for improved analytical tools, covering concepts, representation, modeling and reliability. These works are important contributions that help us to identify what advances in geospatial analysis can better address the complex interactions of public health with our physical and cultural environment, and bridge research and practice, so that geospatial analyses can inform public health policy making. [...]
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.064 | 0.010 |
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".