Finding corresponding objects when integrating several geo-spatial datasets
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
When integrating geo-spatial datasets, a join algorithm is used for finding sets of corresponding objects (i.e., objects that represent the same real-world entity). Algorithms for joining two datasets were studied in the past. This paper investigates integration of three datasets and proposes methods that can be easily generalized to any number of datasets. Two approaches that use only locations of objects are presented and compared. In one approach, a join algorithm for two datasets is applied sequentially. In the second approach, all the integrated datasets are processed simultaneously. For the two approaches, join algorithms are given and their performances, in terms of recall and precision, are compared. The algorithms are designed to perform well even when locations are imprecise and each dataset represents only some of the real-world entities. Results of extensive experiments show that one of the algorithms has the best (or close to the best) performances under all circumstances. This algorithm has a much better performance than applying sequentially the one-sided nearest-neighbor join.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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