MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024678590 · doi:10.1145/602421.602453

Use of the SAND spatial browser for digital government applications

2003· article· en· W2024678590 on OpenAlexaff
Hanan Samet, Houman Alborzi, František Brabec, Cláudio Esperança, Gı́sli R. Hjaltason, Frank Morgan, Egemen Tanin

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications of the ACM · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Management and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceInterface (matter)Spatial analysisWorld Wide WebThe InternetInformation retrievalWeb browserSpatial data infrastructureAgency (philosophy)Remote sensingGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Numerous federal agencies produce official statistics made accessible to ordinary citizens for searching and data retrieval. This is frequently done via the Internet through a Web browser interface. If this data is presented in textual format, it can often be searched and retrieved by such attributes as topic, responsible agency, keywords, or press release. However, if the data is of spatial nature, for example, in the form of a map, then using text-based queries is often too cumbersome for the intended audience. We describe the use of the SAND Spatial Browser to provide more power to users of these databases by enabling them to define and explore the specific spatial region of interest graphically. The SAND Spatial Browser allows users to form either purely spatial or mixed spatial/nonspatial queries intuitively, which can present information to users that might have been missed if only a textual interface was available.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.115

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0340.014

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.204 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations80
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications of the ACMSame topicData Management and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207