Local indicators for categorical data: impacts of scaling decisions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When the geographic distribution of landscape pattern varies, global indices fail to capture the spatial nonstationarity within the dataset. Methods that measure landscape pattern at a spatially local scale are advantageous, as an index is computed at each point in the dataset. The geographic distribution of local indices is used to discover spatial trends. Local indicators for categorical data (LICD) can be used to statistically quantify local spatial patterns in binary geographic datasets. LICD, like other spatially local methods, are impacted by decisions relating to the spatial scale of the data, such as the data grain (p), and analysis parameters such as the size of the local neighbourhood (m). The goal of this article is to demonstrate how the choice of the m and p parameters impacts LICD analysis. We also briefly discuss the impacts spatial extent can have on analysis; specifically the local composition measure. An example using 2006 forest cover data for a region in British Columbia, Canada where mountain pine beetle mitigation and salvage harvesting has occurred is used to show the impacts of changing m and p. Selection of local window size (m = 3,5,7) impacts the prevalence and interpretation of significant results. Increasing data grain (p) had varying effects on significant LICD results. When implementing LICD the choice of m and p impacts results. Exploring multiple combinations of m and p will provide insight into selection of ideal parameters for analysis.
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 | 0.257 | 0.640 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".