The Eighth ACM SIGSPATIAL International Workshop on Analysis for Big Spatial Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the "Big Data Research and Development Initiative" launched by the White House in 2012, big data has received great attention from industry and federal agencies alike emerging as an important area of research for scientists worldwide. Within the realm of big data, spatial and spatiotemporal data continues to be among the fastest-growing types of data. With advances in remote sensors, sensor networks, and the proliferation of location sensing devices in daily life activities and common business practices, the generation of disparate, dynamic, and geographically distributed spatiotemporal data has exploded in recent years. In addition, significant progress in the ground, air- and space-borne sensor technologies have led to unprecedented access to earth science data for scientists from different disciplines, interested in studying the complementary nature of different parameters. Today, analyzing this data poses a massive challenge to researchers.
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 | 0.011 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.022 |
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".