A geovisual analytics approach for analyzing event-based geospatial anomalies within movement data
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comparing data collected on the movement of an entity to data on the location where the entity was reported to have been can be useful in monitoring and enforcement situations. Anomalies between these datasets may be indicative of illegal activity, systematic reporting errors, data entry errors, or equipment failure. While finding obvious anomalies may be a simple task, the discovery of more subtle inconsistencies can be challenging when there is a mismatch in the temporal granularity between the datasets, or when they cover large temporal and geographic ranges. We have developed a geovisual analytics approach called Visual Exploration of Movement-Event Anomalies (VEMEA) that automatically extracts potential anomalies from the data, visually encodes these on a map, and provides interactive filtering and exploration tools to allow expert analysts to investigate and evaluate the anomalies. Using two case studies from the fisheries enforcement domain, the value of VEMEA is illustrated for both confirmatory and exploratory data analysis tasks. Field trial evaluations conducted with expert fisheries data analysts further support the benefits of the approach.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 it