A geovisual analytics approach for analyzing event-based geospatial anomalies within movement data
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".