Expressive map design: OGC SLD/SE++ extension for expressive map styles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. In the context of custom map design, handling more artistic and expressive tools has been identified as a carto-graphic need, in order to design stylized and expressive maps. Based on previous works on style formalization, an approach for specifying the map style has been proposed and experimented for particular use cases. A first step deals with the analysis of inspiration sources, in order to extract ‘what does make the style of the source’, i.e. the salient visual characteristics to be automatically reproduced (textures, spatial arrangements, linear stylization, etc.). In a second step, in order to mimic and generate those visual characteristics, existing and innovative rendering techniques have been implemented in our GIS engine, thus extending the capabilities to generate expressive renderings. Therefore, an extension of the existing cartographic pipeline has been proposed based on the following aspects: 1- extension of the symbolization specifications OGC SLD/SE in order to provide a formalism to specify and reference expressive rendering methods; 2- separate the specification of each rendering method and its parameterization, as metadata. The main contribution has been described in (Christophe et al. 2016). In this paper, we focus firstly on the extension of the cartographic pipeline (SLD++ and metadata) and secondly on map design capabilities which have been experimented on various topographic styles: old cartographic styles (Cassini), artistic styles (watercolor, impressionism, Japanese print), hybrid topographic styles (ortho-imagery & vector data) and finally abstract and photo-realist styles for the geovisualization of costal area. The genericity and interoperability of our approach are promising and have already been tested for 3D visualization.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.006 |
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".