Designing a Rule-based Wizard for Visualizing Statistical Data on Thematic Maps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thematic maps are used in a wide range of scientific fields to illustrate specific geographic phenomena. For their correct construction, the mapmaker has to select the appropriate data, and then consider different parameters and constraints in order to visualize them effectively. In this paper, these parameters were analyzed, so that a consistent and standardized workflow for producing thematic maps could be set up. This workflow served as the basis for designing and implementing a step-by-step wizard-based application. Its goal is to guide mapmakers—experts or laypersons—to create cartographically sound thematic maps based on statistical data, in a user-friendly way. To standardize the procedure, we analyzed the relationships between different mapping techniques and the types of data with which they are used to illustrate a geographic phenomenon. Based on this analysis, we created a new taxonomy of mapping techniques and used it to automate the selection procedure within the wizard. This analysis could also be of general use for researchers producing thematic maps in different mapping applications.
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 | 0.014 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; 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".