Naive (commonsense) geography and geobrowser usability after ten years of Google Earth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1995, the concept of 'naive geography' was formally introduced as an area of cognitive geographic information science representing 'the body of knowledge that people have about the surrounding geographic world' and reflecting 'the way people think and reason about geographic space and time, both consciously and subconsciously'. The need to incorporate such commonsense knowledge and reasoning into design of geospatial technologies was identified but faced challenges in formalizing these relationships and processes in software implementation. Ten years later, the Google Earth geobrowser was released, marking the beginning of a new era of open access to, and application of, geographic data and information in society. Fast-forward to today, and the opportunity presents itself to take stock of twenty years of naive geography and a decade of the ubiquitous virtual globe. This paper introduces an ongoing research effort to explore the integration of naive (or commonsense) geography concepts in the Google Earth geobrowser virtual globe and their possible impact on Google Earth's usability, utility, and usefulness. A multi-phase methodology is described, combining usability reviews and usability testing with use-case scenarios involving the U.S.-Canadian Yellowstone to Yukon Initiative. Initial progress on a usability review combining cognitive walkthroughs and heuristics evaluation is presented.
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 | 0.000 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".