On the ternary spatial relation "Between"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The spatial relation "between" is a notion which is intrinsically both fuzzy and contextual, and depends, in particular, on the shape of the objects. The literature is quite poor on this and the few existing definitions do not take into account these aspects. In particular, an object B that is in a concavity of an object A1 not visible from an object A2 is considered between A1 and A2 for most definitions, which is counter intuitive. Also, none of the definitions deal with cases where one object is much more elongated than the other. Here, we propose definitions which are based on convexity, morphological operators, and separation tools, and a fuzzy notion of visibility. They correspond to the main intuitive exceptions of the relation. We distinguish between cases where objects have similar spatial extensions and cases where one object is much more extended than the other. Extensions to cases where objects, themselves, are fuzzy and to three-dimensional space are proposed as well. The original work proposed in this paper covers the main classes of situations and overcomes the limits of existing approaches, particularly concerning nonvisible concavities and extended objects. Moreover, the definitions capture the intrinsic imprecision attached to this relation. The main proposed definitions are illustrated on real data from medical images.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".