MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2562759545 · doi:10.22230/src.2016v7n2/3a253

StructureMorph: Creating Scholarly 3D Models for a Convergent, Digital Publishing Environment

2016· article· en· W2562759545 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
John Bonnett, Mark Anderson, Wei Tang, Brian Farrimond, Léon Robichaud

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarly and Research Communication · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Modeling in Geospatial Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkflowComputer sciencePremiseObject (grammar)World Wide WebData scienceGeographic information systemDatabaseArtificial intelligenceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The StructureMorph project rests on the premise that future publishing platforms will converge multiple applications, such as geographic information systems (GIS) and game engines, and multiple paradigms of computing, such as desktop computing and high-performance computing. Convergent platforms will also present design challenges for scholars.Analysis: In this contribution, one response to these challenges is presented: the Complex Object. Complex Objects are 4D models that alter their shape and surface appearance in response to user interaction, and changes in world time. They also to mimic the behaviours of 2D polygons as configured in geographic information systems, graphically linking attribute data with spatial locales.Conclusion and implications: This article discusses the concept of the Complex Object and describes the software and workflow devised to support its creation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.006

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarly and Research CommunicationSame topic3D Modeling in Geospatial ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207