A Simulation-Based Study of Geographically Weighted Regression as a Method for Investigating Spatially Varying Relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large variability and correlations among the coefficients obtained from the method of geographically weighted regression (GWR) have been identified in previous research. This is an issue that poses a serious challenge for the utility of the method as a tool to investigate multivariate relationships. The objectives of this paper are to assess: (1) the ability of GWR to discriminate between a spatially constant processes and one with spatially varying relationships; and (2) to accurately retrieve spatially varying relationships. Extensive numerical experiments are used to investigate situations where the underlying process is stationary and nonstationary, and to assess the degree to which spurious intercoefficient correlations are introduced. Two different implementations of GWR and cross-validation approaches are assessed. Results suggest that judicious application of GWR can be used to discern whether the underlying process is nonstationary. Furthermore, evidence of spurious correlations indicates that caution must be exercised when drawing conclusions regarding spatial relationships retrieved using this approach, particularly when working with small samples.
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 | 0.010 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".