Complex spatial networks: Theory and geospatial applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Complex systems modeling approaches offer the means to examine the way in which local interactions between system components form emergent systems. Using these bottom‐up modeling approaches in combination with geographic information systems (GIS) and geospatial data, the complexity inherent to spatial phenomena including geographical, urban, ecological, or geophysical systems can be captured and represented. Scientific research in the field of network science also uses a complex systems approach to conceptualize, model, and analyze geospatial systems as networks. Despite having common characteristics, complexity, geographic information, and network sciences are not yet fully integrated. Therefore, the main objective of this article is to provide a comprehensive review of scientific research related to network theory and to evaluate the potential of their integration with complex systems modeling approaches originating in the field of geographic information science (GISc). This article finds that existing literature focuses on characterizing static spatial network structures to better understand the dynamics that take place on or within them. This article argues for a necessity in research advancements to explore the way in which real spatial network structures evolve in response to spatial dynamics and advocates for the integration of geographic automata systems (GAS) modeling approaches with networks to do so. The mathematical foundation for graph theory, including the measures that are used to describe networks and the theoretical graph types, are introduced. Geospatial applications of networks and graph theory are also presented. Examples of network‐based automata models are presented as avenues for future research work in evolving spatial networks as part of GISc and computational geography.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".