Optimizing the choice of a spatial weighting matrix in eigenvector‐based methods
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eigenvector-mapping methods such as Moran's eigenvector maps (MEM) are derived from a spatial weighting matrix (SWM) that describes the relations among a set of sampled sites. The specification of the SWM is a crucial step, but the SWM is generally chosen arbitrarily, regardless of the sampling design characteristics. Here, we compare the statistical performances of different types of SWMs (distance-based or graph-based) in contrasted realistic simulation scenarios. Then, we present an optimization method and evaluate its performances compared to the arbitrary choice of the most-widely used distance-based SWM. Results showed that the distance-based SWMs generally had lower power and accuracy than other specifications, and strongly underestimated spatial signals. The optimization method, using a correction procedure for multiple tests, had a correct type I error rate, and had higher power and accuracy than an arbitrary choice of the SWM. Nevertheless, the power decreased when too many SWMs were compared, resulting in a trade-off between the gain of accuracy and the loss of power. We advocate that future studies should optimize the choice of the SWM using a small set of appropriate candidates. R functions to implement the optimization are available in the adespatial package and are detailed in a tutorial.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 it