MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Towards Precise Metadata-set for Discovering 3D Geospatial Models in Geo-portals

2013· article· en· W2143138223 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueISPRS annals of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Modeling in Geospatial Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMetadataGeospatial analysisGeospatial metadataComputer scienceMeta Data ServicesMetadata repositoryGeospatial PDFMetadata modelingWorld Wide WebInformation retrievalDatabase catalogSet (abstract data type)Data elementSpatial data infrastructureDigital elevation modelData scienceGeographySpatial analysisRemote sensing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Accessing 3D geospatial models, eventually at no cost and for unrestricted use, is certainly an important issue as they become popular among participatory communities, consultants, and officials. Various geo-portals, mainly established for 2D resources, have tried to provide access to existing 3D resources such as digital elevation model, LIDAR or classic topographic data. Describing the content of data, metadata is a key component of data discovery in geo-portals. An inventory of seven online geo-portals and commercial catalogues shows that the metadata referring to 3D information is very different from one geo-portal to another as well as for similar 3D resources in the same geo-portal. The inventory considered 971 data resources affiliated with elevation. 51% of them were from three geo-portals running at Canadian federal and municipal levels whose metadata resources did not consider 3D model by any definition. Regarding the remaining 49% which refer to 3D models, different definition of terms and metadata were found, resulting in confusion and misinterpretation. The overall assessment of these geo-portals clearly shows that the provided metadata do not integrate specific and common information about 3D geospatial models. Accordingly, the main objective of this research is to improve 3D geospatial model discovery in geo-portals by adding a specific metadata-set. Based on the knowledge and current practices on 3D modeling, and 3D data acquisition and management, a set of metadata is proposed to increase its suitability for 3D geospatial models. This metadata-set enables the definition of genuine classes, fields, and code-lists for a 3D metadata profile. The main structure of the proposal contains 21 metadata classes. These classes are classified in three packages as General and Complementary on contextual and structural information, and Availability on the transition from storage to delivery format. The proposed metadata set is compared with Canadian Geospatial Data Infrastructure (CGDI) metadata which is an implementation of North American Profile of ISO-19115. The comparison analyzes the two metadata against three simulated scenarios about discovering needed 3D geo-spatial datasets. Considering specific metadata about 3D geospatial models, the proposed metadata-set has six additional classes on geometric dimension, level of detail, geometric modeling, topology, and appearance information. In addition classes on data acquisition, preparation, and modeling, and physical availability have been specialized for 3D geospatial models.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.857
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it