An ontology-based framework for geospatial clustering
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
Geospatial clustering is an important topic in knowledge discovery research and geospatial information systems. However, current clustering research emphasizes the development of more efficient and effective clustering methods without paying much attention to domain knowledge and users' goals during the clustering process. Making better use of geospatial and clustering knowledge to select proper methods and datasets will help achieve clustering results that better meet users' requirements. In this article, we present the GEO_CLUST framework for performing geospatial clustering. The framework consists of the GeoCO ontology for geospatial clustering and the ontology reasoner reasoning mechanism. The GeoCO ontology is used to represent geospatial and clustering domain knowledge. The ontology reasoner uses classification and decomposition techniques to specify users' tasks. Using the framework, users can identify the appropriate geospatial data and clustering method based on their specific goals. To demonstrate the framework, two case studies on finding population density clusters in Western Canada and locating five hospitals in South Carolina are discussed. The results show that the framework can select the proper datasets and clustering methods with respect to users' goals.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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