Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many websites contain very attractive and up to date geographical information. This information can be extracted, stored, analyzed and mapped using web harvesting techniques. Poorly organized data from websites are transformed with web harvesting into a more structured format, which can be stored in a database and analyzed. Almost 25% of web traffic is related to web harvesting, mostly while using search engines. This paper presents how to harvest geographic information from web documents using the free tool called the Beautiful Soup, one of the most commonly used Python libraries for pulling data from HTML and XML files. It is a relatively easy task to process one static HTML table. The more challenging task is to extract and save information from tables located in multiple and poorly organized websites. Legal and ethical aspects of web harvesting are discussed as well. The paper demonstrates two case studies. The first one shows how to extract various types of information about the Good Country Index from the multiple web pages, load it into one attribute table and map the results. The second case study shows how script tools and GIS can be used to extract information from one hundred thirty six websites about Nova Scotia wines. In a little more than three minutes a database containing one hundred and six liquor stores selling these wines is created. Then the availability and spatial distribution of various types of wines (by grape types, by wineries, and by liquor stores) are mapped and analyzed.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".