MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151629473 · doi:10.1111/1467-9671.00035

On the Use of Weighted Linear Combination Method in GIS: Common and Best Practice Approaches

2000· article· en· W2151629473 on OpenAlexaff
Jacek Malczewski

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions in GIS · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeographic Information Systems Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData miningComputer scienceBest practiceOperations researchMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The weighted linear combination (WLC) technique is a decision rule for deriving composite maps using GIS. It is one of the most often used decision models in GIS. The method, however, is frequently applied without full understanding of the assumptions underling this approach. In many case studies, the WLC model has been applied incorrectly and with dubious results because analysts (decision makers) have ignored or been unaware of the assumptions. This paper provides a critical overview of the current practice with respect to GIS/WLC and suggests the best practice approach.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.078
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.129
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.414

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0780.129
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0130.020
Science and technology studies0.0030.015
Scholarly communication0.0100.012
Open science0.0080.008
Research integrity0.0080.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.110
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations602
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions in GISSame topicGeographic Information Systems StudiesFrench-language works237,207