Creating a three level building classification using topographic and address-based data for Manchester
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Buildings, the basic unit of an urban landscape, host most of its socio-economic activities and play an important role in the creation of urban land-use patterns. The spatial arrangement of different building types creates varied urban land-use clusters which can provide an insight to understand the relationships between social, economic, and living spaces. The classification of such urban clusters can help in policy-making and resource management. In many countries including the UK no national-level cadastral database containing information on individual building types exists in public domain. In this paper, we present a framework for inferring functional types of buildings based on the analysis of their form (e.g. geometrical properties, such as area and perimeter, layout) and spatial relationship from large topographic and address-based GIS database. Machine learning algorithms along with exploratory spatial analysis techniques are used to create the classification rules. The classification is extended to two further levels based on the functions (use) of buildings derived from address-based data. The developed methodology was applied to the Manchester metropolitan area using the Ordnance Survey‟s MasterMap®, a large-scale topographic and address-based data available for the UK.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".