MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2928362760 · doi:10.1201/9781003078661-13

Interpolation Incorporating both spatial association and singularity

2020· book-chapter· en· W2928362760 on OpenAlexaffabout
Qiuming Cheng, Q. Li

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSurface Roughness and Optical Measurements
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpolation (computer graphics)Association (psychology)Multivariate interpolationSingularityMathematicsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceStatisticsMathematical analysisPsychologyBilinear interpolation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spatial association indexes (autocorrelation, covariance, and variogram) have been commonly used to characterize the local structure of surfaces and for data interpolation in kriging. Singularity is another index representing the scaling invariant property of measures from a multifractal point view. Spatial association and scaling invariant are two different aspects of local structure of surfaces. Both must be taken into account in data interpolation and surface construction. Kriging as one of the sophisticated mapping techniques is based on the spatial association of neighborhood values through semivariogram. Recent study of multifractal modeling has shown that the local singularity exponent involved in multifractal modeling can quantify the local scaling invariant property characterizing the concave/convex properties of the neighborhood values. The method proposed in this paper incorporates both the singularity and spatial association in data interpolation. It has been shown by a case study of As geochemical values of sediment samples from southwestern Nova Scotia, Canada, that incorporation of spatial association and singularity can improve the interpolation result significantly, especially for observed values with significant singularity.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score0.754

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.181 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSurface Roughness and Optical MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207