Representing Complex Evolving Spatial Networks: Geographic Network Automata
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many real-world spatial systems can be conceptualized as networks. In these conceptualizations, nodes and links represent system components and their interactions, respectively. Traditional network analysis applies graph theory measures to static network datasets. However, recent interest lies in the representation and analysis of evolving networks. Existing network automata approaches simulate evolving network structures, but do not consider the representation of evolving networks embedded in geographic space nor integrating actual geospatial data. Therefore, the objective of this study is to integrate network automata with geographic information systems (GIS) to develop a novel modelling framework, Geographic Network Automata (GNA), for representing and analyzing complex dynamic spatial systems as evolving geospatial networks. The GNA framework is implemented and presented for two case studies including a spatial network representation of (1) Conway’s Game of Life model and (2) Schelling’s model of segregation. The simulated evolving spatial network structures are measured using graph theory. Obtained results demonstrate that the integration of concepts from geographic information science, complex systems, and network theory offers new means to represent and analyze complex spatial systems. The presented GNA modelling framework is both general and flexible, useful for modelling a variety of real geospatial phenomena and characterizing and exploring network structure, dynamics, and evolution of real spatial systems. The proposed GNA modelling framework fits within the larger framework of geographic automata systems (GAS) alongside cellular automata and agent-based modelling.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".