Bibliographic record
Abstract
International Map of the World (IMW) is the human beings’ first global mapping project which aimed at compiling a general-purpose map series composed of almost a thousand of topographic map sheets covering the whole landmass in accordance with a common scale (1:1 million), a common map projection(Lambert conformal conic projection), and a common mapping specification, but ended in failure in 1989. IMW is indeed a gigantic event in the history of cartography which can be seen from the fact that it was recognized as one of the best maps in the 20th century and one of the greatest maps in the whole history of cartography, and the year 1891 when Albrecht Penck officially proposed the project was conceived of as the beginning of the modern cartography. The cartographical significance of the IMW project is threefold. First, IMW became the exemplar for many of the ensuing global mapping projects as the Digital Chart of the World and Global Mapping. Second, IMW provided a standard mapping specification for topographic maps (especially with respect to map projections and hypsometric tints). Third, IMW offered a foundational framework for topographic map indexing. The IMW indexing system which was originally designed to denote the IMW grids each of which is 4° of latitude and 6° of longitude has become the predominant convention for topographic map indexing in many countries. This, the most prominent IMW legacy, is exemplified by the topographic map indexing systems practiced in such countries as South Korea, Japan, Australian, United States, Russia, and Canada.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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".