Modelling Offset Regions around Static and Mobile Locations on a Discrete Global Grid System: An IoT Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the huge volume of location-based point data being generated by Internet of Things (IoT) devices and subsequent rising interest from the Digital Earth community, a need has emerged for spatial operations that are compatible with Digital Earth frameworks, the foundation of which are Discrete Global Grid Systems (DGGSs). Offsetting is a fundamental spatial operation that allows us to determine the region within a given distance of an IoT device location, which is important for visualizing or querying nearby location-based data. Thus, in this paper, we present methods of modelling an offset region around the point location of an IoT device (both static and mobile) that is quantized into a cell of a DGGS. Notably, these methods illustrate how the underlying indexing structure of a DGGS can be utilized to determine the cells in an offset region at different spatial resolutions. For a static IoT device location, we describe a single resolution approach as well as a multiresolution approach that allows us to efficiently determine the cells in an offset region at finer (or coarser) resolutions. For mobile IoT device locations, we describe methods to efficiently determine the cells in successive offset regions at fine and coarse resolutions. Lastly, we present a variety of results that demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed methods.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".