Accuracy of Count Data Estimated by the Point‐in‐Polygon Method
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
This paper analyzes the accuracy of count data estimated by the point‐in‐polygon method. A point‐in‐polygon interpolation model is proposed, based on a stochastic distribution of points and the target zone, in order to represent a variety of situations. The accuracy of estimates is numerically investigated in relation to the size of the target zone and the distribution of points, and the optimal location of representative points is discussed. The major findings of this paper are as follows: (1) though the relative accuracy of estimates generally increases monotonously with the size of the target zone, the monotoneity is often disturbed by the periodicity in the spatial configuration of source zones and the point distribution; (2) the point‐in‐polygon and the areal weighting interpolation methods have the same accuracy of estimates when points are concentrated in less than 12–15 percent area around the representative point in source zones; (3) the point‐in‐polygon method is not so robust against the locational gap between points and the representative point; (4) the optimal location of representative points is given by the spatial median of points.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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