Inference and analysis across spatial supports in the big data era: Uncertain point observations and geographic contexts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The ways in which geographic information are produced have expanded rapidly over recent decades. These advances have provided new opportunities for geographical information science and spatial analysis—allowing the tools and theories to be expanded to new domain areas and providing the impetus for theory and methodological development. In this light, old problems of inference and analysis are rediscovered and need to be reinterpreted, and new ones are made apparent. This article describes a new typology of geographical analysis problems that relates to uncertainties in the relationship between individual‐level data, represented as point features, and the geographic context(s) that they are associated with. We describe how uncertainty in context linkage (uncertain geographic context problem) is also related to, but distinct from, uncertainty in point‐event locations (uncertain point observation problem) and how these issues can impact spatial analysis. A case study analysis of a geosocial dataset demonstrates how alternative conclusions can result from failure to account for these sources of uncertainty. Sources of point observation uncertainties common in many forms of user‐generated and big spatial data are outlined and methods for dealing with them are reviewed and discussed.
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 | 0.045 | 0.160 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".