Computing and querying strict, approximate, and metrically refined topological relations in linked geographic data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Geographic entities and the information associated with them play a major role in Web‐scale knowledge graphs such as Linked Data. Interestingly, almost all major datasets represent places and even entire regions as point coordinates. There are two key reasons for this. First, complex geometries are difficult to store and query using the current Linked Data technology stack to a degree where many queries take minutes to return or will simply time out. Second, the absence of complex geometries confirms a common suspicion among GIScientists, namely that for many everyday queries place‐based relational knowledge is more relevant than raw geometries alone. To give an illustrative example, the statement that the White House is in Washington, DC is more important for gaining an understating of the city than the exact geometries of both entities. This does not imply that complex geometries are unimportant but that (topological) relations should also be extracted from them. As Egenhofer and Mark (1995b) put it in their landmark paper on naive geography, topology matters, metric refines. In this work we demonstrate how to compute and utilize strict, approximate, and metrically refined topological relations between several geographic feature types in DBpedia and compare our results to approaches that compute result sets for topological queries on the fly.
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 | 0.005 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".