Mining Statistically Significant Co-location and Segregation Patterns
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
In spatial domains, interaction between features gives rise to two types of interaction patterns: co-location and segregation patterns. Existing approaches to finding co-location patterns have several shortcomings: (1) They depend on user specified thresholds for prevalence measures; (2) they do not take spatial auto-correlation into account; and (3) they may report co-locations even if the features are randomly distributed. Segregation patterns have yet to receive much attention. In this paper, we propose a method for finding both types of interaction patterns, based on a statistical test. We introduce a new definition of co-location and segregation pattern, we propose a model for the null distribution of features so spatial auto-correlation is taken into account, and we design an algorithm for finding both co-location and segregation patterns. We also develop two strategies to reduce the computational cost compared to a naïve approach based on simulations of the data distribution, and we propose an approach to reduce the runtime of our algorithm even further by using an approximation of the neighborhood of features. We evaluate our method empirically using synthetic and real data sets and demonstrate its advantages over a state-of-the-art co-location mining algorithm.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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