Variable selection for inhomogeneous spatial point process models
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this work, we consider variable selection when modelling the intensity and clustering of inhomogeneous spatial point processes, integrating well‐known procedures in the respective fields of variable selection and spatial point process modelling to introduce a simple procedure for variable selection in spatial point process modelling. Specifically, we consider modelling spatial point data with Poisson, pairwise interaction and Neyman–Scott cluster models, and incorporate LASSO, adaptive LASSO, and elastic net regularization methods into the generalized linear model framework for fitting these point models. We perform simulation studies to explore the effectiveness of using each of the three‐regularization methods in our procedure. We then use the procedure in two applications, modelling the intensity and clustering of rainforest trees with soil and geographical covariates using a Neyman–Scott model, and of fast food restaurant locations in New York City with Census variables and school locations using a pairwise interaction model. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 43: 288–305; 2015 © 2015 Statistical Society of Canada
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 it