Modelling Offset Regions around Static and Mobile Locations on a Discrete Global Grid System: An IoT Case Study
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
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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