A Python Algorithm for Shortest-Path River Network Distance Calculations Considering River Flow Direction
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vector based shortest path analysis in geographic information system (GIS) is well established for road networks. Even though these network algorithms can be applied to river layers, they do not generally consider the direction of flow. This paper presents a Python 3.7 program (upstream_downstream_shortests_path_dijkstra.py) that was specifically developed for river networks. It implements multiple single-source (one to one) weighted Dijkstra shortest path calculations, on a list of provided source and target nodes, and returns the route geometry, the total distance between each source and target node, and the total upstream and downstream distances for each shortest path. The end result is similar to what would be obtained by an “all-pairs” weighted Dijkstra shortest path algorithm. Contrary to an “all-pairs” Dijkstra, the algorithm only operates on the source and target nodes that were specified by the user and not on all of the nodes contained within the graph. For efficiency, only the upper distance matrix is returned (e.g., distance from node A to node B), while the lower distance matrix (e.g., distance from nodes B to A) is not. The program is intended to be used in a multiprocessor environment and relies on Python’s multiprocessing package.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it