MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2988475898 · doi:10.29007/48dt

Potential distribution of clandestine graves in Guerrero using geospatial analysis and modelling

2019· article· en· W2988475898 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueKalpa publications in computing · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Resources CanadaU.S. Geological SurveyNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationMinistry of Economy, Trade and Industry
KeywordsGeospatial analysisRelation (database)Task (project management)Distribution (mathematics)Computer scienceSpace (punctuation)GeographyData scienceCartographyEngineeringData miningMathematicsSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Searching clandestine graves is a huge task being conducted by many people around the world. In Mexico, this activity has steadily grown since the disappearance of the 43 students from Ayotzinapa, Gro. leading to the discovery of over a hundred of clandestine graves in the vicinity of Iguala, Gro. In order to facilitate extensive searches, a map of the potential distribution of clandestine graves would be valuable as it can reduce time, cost and effort paid by search brigades. This paper introduces the concept of clandestine space, shows its relation with known grave locations and uses it to map the potential distribution of clandestine graves in Guerrero by means of a machine learning approach.

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 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.333
Threshold uncertainty score0.513

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.235 · 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