MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3042993452 · doi:10.5194/agile-giss-1-6-2020

Integrating cellular automata and discrete global grid systems: a case study into wildfire modelling

2020· article· en· W3042993452 on OpenAlexafffund
Majid Hojati, Colin Robertson

Bibliographic record

VenueAGILE GIScience Series · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCellular Automata and Applications
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
FundersGlobal Water Futures
KeywordsComputer scienceRaster dataSpatial analysisCellular automatonRaster graphicsGridData miningData model (GIS)Spatial data infrastructureSpatial databaseGeographic information systemDistributed computingRemote sensingAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. With new forms of digital spatial data driving new applications for monitoring and understanding environmental change, there are growing demands on traditional GIS tools for spatial data storage, management and processing. Discrete Global Grid System (DGGS) are methods to tessellate globe into multiresolution grids, which represent a global spatial fabric capable of storing heterogeneous spatial data, and improved performance in data access, retrieval, and analysis. While DGGS-based GIS may hold potential for next-generation big data GIS platforms, few of studies have tried to implement them as a framework for operational spatial analysis. Cellular Automata (CA) is a classic dynamic modeling framework which has been used with traditional raster data model for various environmental modeling such as wildfire modeling, urban expansion modeling and so on. The main objectives of this paper are to (i) investigate the possibility of using DGGS for running dynamic spatial analysis, (ii) evaluate CA as a generic data model for dynamic phenomena modeling within a DGGS data model and (iii) evaluate an in-database approach for CA modelling. To do so, a case study into wildfire spread modelling is developed. Results demonstrate that using a DGGS data model not only provides the ability to integrate different data sources, but also provides a framework to do spatial analysis without using geometry-based analysis. This results in a simplified architecture and common spatial fabric to support development of a wide array of spatial algorithms. While considerable work remains to be done, CA modelling within a DGGS-based GIS is a robust and flexible modelling framework for big-data GIS analysis in an environmental monitoring context.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAGILE GIScience SeriesSame topicCellular Automata and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207