On the Study of the Geometric Properties of Historical Cartographic Representations
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The long but partial and still open question of the geometric and projective characteristics and properties of early cartographic representations is revisited in view of the advancements in digital analytical and visual technologies that are now offered in a “part and parcel” operational environment, allowing a level of interactivity almost unthinkable even in the recent past. In this new technology frame, the geometric study of early maps is treated analytically via a typical two-dimensional comparison with relevant modern map counterparts or georeference. By bringing in the early map with a one-to-one correspondence to its modern reference, the comparison retains all those proper transformational steps that result in the visualization of map differences and, thus, the study of the geometric and projective properties of early maps. To illustrate the proposed process, two indicative examples are treated, related to two distinct schematic typologies of early maps: (1) a georeferenced map of the Ptolemy type, and (2) a non-georeferenced early map of the portolan type. A number of results related to these examples open a perspective for new pathways in the fascinating and adventurous field of map history.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it