Power of the Rank Adjacency Statistic to Detect Spatial Clustering in a Small Number of Regions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rank adjacency statistic D is a statistical method for assessing spatial autocorrelation or clustering of geographical data. It was originally proposed for summarizing the geographical patterns of cancer data in Scotland (IARC 1985). In this paper, we investigate the power of the rank adjacency statistic to detect spatial clustering when a small number of regions is involved. The investigations were carried out using Monte Carlo simulations, which involved generating patterned/clustered values and computing the power with which the D statistic would detect it. To investigate the effects of region shapes, structure of the regions, and definition of weights, simulations were carried out using two different region shapes, binary and nonhinary weights, and three different lattice structures. The results indicate that in the typical example of considering Canadian total mortality at the electoral district level, the D statistic had adequate power to detect general spatial autocorrelation in twenty‐five or more regions. There was an inverse relationship between power and the level of connectedness of the regions, which depends on the weighting function, shape, and arrangement of the regions. The power of the D statistic was also found to compare favorably with that of Moran's I statistic.
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 | 0.073 | 0.327 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".