Distributions of Hyper-Local Configuration Elements to Characterize, Compare, and Assess Landscape-Level Spatial Patterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Even with considerable attention in recent decades, measuring and working with patterns remains a complex task due to the underlying dynamic processes that form these patterns, the influence of scales, and the many further implications stemming from their representation. This work scrutinizes binary classes mapped onto regular grids and counts the relative frequencies of all first-order configuration components and then converts these measurements into empirical probabilities of occurrence for either of the two landscape classes. The approach takes into consideration configuration explicitly and composition implicitly (in a common framework), while the construction of a frequency distribution provides a generic model of landscape structure that can be used to simulate structurally similar landscapes or to compare divergence from other landscapes. The technique is first tested on simulated data to characterize a continuum of landscapes across a range of spatial autocorrelations and relative compositions. Subsequent assessments of boundary prominence are explored, where outcomes are known a priori, to demonstrate the utility of this novel method. For a binary map on a regular grid, there are 32 possible configurations of first-order orthogonal neighbours. The goal is to develop a workflow that permits patterns to be characterized in this way and to offer an approach that identifies how relatively divergent observed patterns are, using the well-known Kullback-Leibler divergence.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".