Geographic information system‐based edge effect correction for Ripley's<i>K</i>‐function under irregular boundaries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Ripley's K ‐function is a test to detect geographically distributed patterns occurring across spatial scales. Initially, it assumed infinitely continuous planar space, but in reality, any geographic distribution occurs in a bounded region. Hence, the edge problem must be solved in the application of Ripley's K ‐function. Traditionally, three basic edge correction methods were designed for regular study plots because of simplified geometric computation: the Ripley circumference, buffer zone, and toroidal methods. For an irregular‐shaped study region, a geographic information system (GIS) is needed to support geometric calculation of complex shapes. The Ripley circumference method was originally implemented by Haase and has been modified into a Python program in a GIS environment via Monte Carlo simulation (hereafter, the Ripley–Haase and Ripley–GIS methods). The results show that in terms of the statistical powers of clustering detection for irregular boundaries, the Ripley–GIS method is the most stable, followed by the buffer zone, toroidal, and Ripley–Haase methods. After edge effects of irregular boundaries have been eliminated, Ripley's K ‐function is used to estimate the degree of spatial clustering of cities in a given territory, and in this paper, we demonstrate that by reference to the relationship between urban spatial structure and economic growth in China.
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 | 0.007 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".