MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A SPARK BASED COMPUTING FRAMEWORK FOR SPATIAL DATA

2017· article· en· W2766616325 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Fanghong Xiao

Bibliographic record

VenueISPRS annals of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Management and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Administration of Surveying, Mapping and Geoinformation of ChinaCanadian Institute of Steel Construction
KeywordsSpatial querySPARK (programming language)Computer scienceSpatial analysisRaster graphicsSpatial databaseGridRaster dataData miningRange query (database)Layer (electronics)DatabaseInformation retrievalComputer graphics (images)Remote sensingWeb query classificationGeographyWeb search query

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. In this paper, a novel Apache Spark-based framework for spatial data processing is proposed, which includes 4 layers: spatial data storage, spatial RDDs, spatial operations, and spatial query language. The spatial data storage layer uses HDFS to store large size of spatial vector/raster data in the distributed cluster. The spatial RDDs are the abstract logical dataset of spatial data types, and can be transferred to the spark cluster to conduct spark transformations and actions. The spatial operations layer is a series of processing on spatial RDDs, such as range query, k nearest neighbour and spatial join. The spatial query language is a user-friendly interface which provide people not familiar with Spark with a comfortable way to operation the spatial operation. Compared with other spatial frameworks based on Spark, it is highlighted that spatial indexes like grid, R-tree are used for data storage and query. Extensive experiments on real system prototype and real datasets show that better performance can be achieved.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.999
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.139
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueISPRS annals of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciencesSame topicData Management and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207