Conceptual and mathematical relationships among methods for spatial analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A large number of methods for the analysis of the spatial structure of natural phenomena (for example, the clumping or overdispersion of tree stems, the positions of veins of ore in a rock formation, the arrangement of habitat patches in a landscape, and so on) have been developed in a wide range of scientific fields. This paper reviews many of the methods and describes the relationships among them, both mathematically, using the cross‐product as a unifying principle, and conceptually, based on the form of a moving window or template used in calculation. The relationships among these methods suggest that while no single method can reveal all the important characteristics of spatial data, the results of different analyses are not expected to be completely independent of each other.
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 | 0.045 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".