Comparison of bandwidth selection in application of geographically weighted regression: a case study
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
A forest plot with a clustered spatial pattern of tree locations was used to investigate the impacts of different kernel functions (fixed vs. adaptive) and different sizes of bandwidth on model fitting, model performance, and spatial characteristics of the geographically weighted regression (GWR) coefficient estimates and model residuals. Our results indicated that (i) the GWR models with smaller bandwidths fit the data better, yielded smaller model residuals across tree sizes, significantly reduced spatial autocorrelation and heterogeneity for model residuals, and generated better spatial patterns for model residuals; however, smaller bandwidth sizes produced a high level of coefficient variability; (ii) the GWR models based on the fixed spatial kernel function produced smoother spatial distributions for the model coefficients than those based on the adaptive kernel function; and (iii) the GWR cross-validation or Akaike’s information criterion (AIC) optimization process may not produce an “optimal” bandwidth for model fitting and performance. It was evident that the selection of spatial kernel function and bandwidth has a strong impact on the descriptive and predictive power of GWR models.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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