Local statistical spatial analysis: Inventory and prospect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The past decade has witnessed extensive development of measures that examine characteristics of spatial subsets (local spaces) defined with respect to a complete data set (global space). Such procedures have evolved independently in fields such as geography, GIS, cartography, remote sensing, and landscape ecology. Collectively, we label these procedures as local spatial methods. We focus on those methods that share a common goal of identifying subsets whose characteristics are statistically ‘significant’ in some way. We propose the concept of local spatial statistical analysis (LoSSA) both as an integrative structure for existing methods and as a framework that facilitates the development of new local and global statistics. By formalizing what is involved when a particular local statistic is used, LoSSA helps to reveal the key features and limitations of the procedure. These include a consideration of the nature of the spatial subsets, their spatial relationship to the complete data set, and the relationship between a given global statistic and the corresponding local statistics computed for the data set.
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 | 0.017 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".