MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2958105931 · doi:10.1111/tgis.12557

Spatially constrained regionalization with multilayer perceptron

2019· article· en· W2958105931 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Govorov, Giedrė Beconytė, Gennady Gienko, Віктор Путренко

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions in GIS · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsVancouver Island University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContiguitySpatial analysisHomogeneity (statistics)Computer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceMultilayer perceptronData miningPoint (geometry)SortingMultivariate statisticsMachine learningArtificial neural networkAlgorithmMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this article, multilayer perceptron (MLP) network models with spatial constraints are proposed for regionalization of geostatistical point data based on multivariate homogeneity measures. The study focuses on non‐stationarity and autocorrelation in spatial data. Supervised MLP machine learning algorithms with spatial constraints have been implemented and tested on a point dataset. MLP spatially weighted classification models and an MLP contiguity‐constrained classification model are developed to conduct spatially constrained regionalization. The proposed methods have been tested with an attribute‐rich point dataset of geological surveys in Ukraine. The experiments show that consideration of the spatial effects, such as the use of spatial attributes and their respective whitening, improve the output of regionalization. It is also shown that spatial sorting used to preserve spatial contiguity leads to improved regionalization performance.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.938
Threshold uncertainty score0.763

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.203 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions in GISSame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207