Bibliographic record
Abstract
The emergence of Web 2.0 is materialized by new technologies (APIs, Ajax, etc.), by new practices (mashup, geotagging, etc.) an, by new tools (wiki, blog, etc.). It is primarily based on the principle of participation and collaboration. In this dynamic, the web mapping with spatial character or simply called Geospatial Web (or Geoweb) evolves by strong technological and social changes. Participatory GeoWeb 2.0 is materialized in particular by mashups among wikis and géobrowsers (ArgooMap, Geowiki, WikiMapia, etc.). The new applications resulting from these mashups are moving towards more interactive forms of collective intelligence. The Geodesign is a new area, which is the coupling between GIS and design, allowing a multidisciplinary team to work together. As it is an emergent term, the Geodesign has not be well defined and it requires innovative theoretical basis, new tools, media, technologies and practices to fit its complex requirements. In this document, we propose some GeoWeb 2.0 tools and technologies that could support the Geodesign process. The main contributions of the present research are firstly identifying the needs, requirements and constraints of Geodesign process as an emergent fuzzy field, and secondly offering new supports that are best meeting to the collaborative dimension of this process.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".