Exploration of Spatial Scale Sensitivity in Geographic Cellular Automata
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cellular automata (CA) are individual-based models in which states, time, and space are discrete. Spatiotemporal dynamics emerge from the simple and local interactions of the cells. When using CA in a geographic context, nontrivial questions have to be answered about the choice of spatial scale, namely cell size and neighbourhood configuration. However, the spatial scale decisions involved in the elaboration of geographic cellular automata (GCA) are often made arbitrarily or in relation to data availability. The objective of this study is to evaluate the sensitivity of GCA to spatial scale. A stochastic GCA was built to model land-cover change in the Maskoutains region (Quebec, Canada). The transition rules were empirically derived from two Landsat-TM (30 m resolution) images taken in 1999 and 2002 that have been resampled to four resolutions (100, 200, 500, 1000 m). Six different neighbourhood configurations were considered (Moore, Von Neumann, and circular approximations of 2, 3, 4, and 5 cell radii). Simulations were performed for each of the thirty spatial scale scenarios. Results show that spatial scale has a considerable impact on simulation dynamics in terms of both land-cover area and spatial structure. The spatial scale domains present in the results reveal the nonlinear relationships that link the spatial scale components to the simulation results.
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 | 0.003 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".