An Integrated GIS-Expert System Framework for Live Hazard Monitoring and Detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the context of hazard monitoring, using sensor web technology to monitor anddetect hazardous conditions in near-real-time can result in large amounts of spatial data thatcan be used to drive analysis at an instrumented site. These data can be used for decisionmaking and problem solving, however as with any analysis problem the success ofanalyzing hazard potential is governed by many factors such as: the quality of the sensordata used as input; the meaning that can be derived from those data; the reliability of themodel used to describe the problem; the strength of the analysis methods; and the ability toeffectively communicate the end results of the analysis. For decision makers to make use ofsensor web data these issues must be dealt with to some degree. The work described in thispaper addresses all of these areas by showing how raw sensor data can be automaticallytransformed into a representation which matches a predefined model of the problem context.This model can be understood by analysis software that leverages rule-based logic andinference techniques to reason with, and draw conclusions about, spatial data. These toolsare integrated with a well known Geographic Information System (GIS) and existinggeospatial and sensor web infrastructure standards, providing expert users with the toolsneeded to thoroughly explore a problem site and investigate hazards in any domain.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.005 |
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".