Strategies for Geographical Scoping and Improving a Gazetteer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many applications that use geographical databases (a.k.a. gazetteers) rely on the accuracy of the information in the database. However, poor data quality is an issue when data is integrated from multiple sources with different quality constraints and sometimes with little information about the sources. One major consequence of this is that the geographical scope of a location and/or its position may not be known or may not be accurate. In this paper, we study the problem of detecting the scope of locations in a geographical database and its applications in identifying inconsistencies and improving the quality of a gazetteer. We develop novel strategies, including probabilistic and geometric approaches, to accurately derive the geographical scope of places based on the spatial hierarchy of a gazetteer as well as other public information (such as area) that may be available. We show how the boundary information derived here can be useful in identifying inconsistencies, enhancing the location hierarchy and improving the applications that rely on gazetteers. Our experimental evaluation on two public-domain gazetteers reveals that the proposed approaches significantly outperform, in terms of the accuracy of the geographical bounding boxes, a baseline that is based on the parent-child relationship of a gazetteer. Among applications, we show that the boundary information derived here can move more than 20% of locations in a public gazetteer to better positions in the hierarchy and that the accuracy of those moves is over 90%.
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 | 0.010 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".