Estimation of Base-Year Floor Space Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Base-year floor space data are essential for integrated land use transport models. This information has traditionally been estimated on the basis of limited population or employment data provided by the census, with unknown accuracy. Advances in geographic information systems (GIS) and remote sensing technology enable the accuracy of this conventional method to be evaluated with geographic data of high precision. This study assessed the accuracy of the census-based approach in estimating base-year floor space data; the paper describes the use of a hybrid method that combines lidar and geographic vector data (referred to as the “lidar-GIS method”) to develop a ground truth building floor space database for the City of Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada. A ground survey proved that the developed ground truth building data set provided highly accurate estimates of building heights, footprint areas, and therefore floor space. Through a case study, the floor space at the dissemination area level estimated with the traditional census-based method was compared with the floor space estimated with the lidar-GIS method for various land use categories. The results showed that for the residential floor space estimation, the average absolute percentage error of the census-based approach was 15%. The accuracy of the conventional method was much lower for nonresidential land use categories, with average errors of 50% or higher. These statistics indicate that the traditional census-based approach is unreliable and inaccurate for use in the estimation of base-year floor space and suggests that a method that incorporates the above-mentioned modern information technologies be used.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".