Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The comparison of spatial patterns is a fundamental task in geography and quantitative spatial modelling. With the growth of data being collected with a geospatial element, we are witnessing an increased interest in analyses requiring spatial pattern comparisons (e.g., model assessment and change analysis). In this paper, we review quantitative techniques for comparing spatial patterns, examining key methodological approaches developed both within and beyond the field of geography. We highlight the key challenges using examples from widely known datasets from the spatial analysis literature. Through these examples, we identify a problematic dichotomy between spatial pattern and process—a widespread issue in the age of big geospatial data. Further, we identify the role of complex topology, the interdependence of spatial configuration and composition, and spatial scale as key (research) challenges. Several areas ripe for geographic research are discussed to establish a consolidated research agenda for spatial pattern comparison grounded in quantitative geography. Hierarchical scaling and the modifiable areal unit problem are highlighted as ideas which can be exploited to identify pattern similarities across spatial and temporal scales. Increased use of “time‐aware” comparisons of spatial processes are suggested, which properly account for spatial evolution and pattern formation. Simulation‐based inference is identified as particularly promising for integrating spatial pattern comparison into existing modelling frameworks. To date, the literature on spatial pattern comparison has been fragmented, and we hope this work will provide a basis for others to build on in future studies.
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 | 0.007 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".