MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3083550465 · doi:10.5539/jgg.v12n2p40

Cemetery Mapping and Digital Data Analysis: A Case Study in Minnesota, USA

2020· article· en· W3083550465 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Maureen L. Schmidt, Fei Yuan, Woo Suk Jang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geography and Geology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVideo Surveillance and Tracking Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWoodlandData collectionGeographyGlobal Positioning SystemTable (database)Geospatial analysisThematic mapSpatial databaseGermanGeoreferencePlan (archaeology)DatabaseCartographySpatial analysisComputer scienceArchaeologyPhysical geographyRemote sensingStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines how geospatial technologies can be used in the aid of local-level cemetery management with limited resources using a case study in Woodland Hills Memorial Park Cemetery, Minnesota, USA. The hard-copy records in a handwritten ledger were manually transferred into an Excel table. The spatial data of the gravesites were collected using a Trimble Geo 7X unit with a Zephyr antenna and a Laser Rangefinder sensor over the summer of 2017. A geodatabase was constructed by joining the Excel table with the GPS data in GIS. A procedure was also developed to map the spatial distributions of plots and analyze the demographic data. It was demonstrated that a very high locational accuracy could be achieved based on carefully designed GPS data collection strategies. In addition, the data analysis results revealed that there were 12,190 plots in total, approximately half of which were still available for purchase. Among the 5,906 inhabitants buried at the Woodland Hills, many were ethnically German and Scandinavian, of whom 9.7% were veterans and nearly half were from the Greatest Generation (born between 1901 and 1927). The birth, death, and age distributions are significantly different between the nonveteran and veteran groups. Clustered patterns were identified for the filled plots and all the Generation categories. Such results will be beneficial to local cemetery managers to plan for further development as well as to future historians or individuals interested in the local culture and history. The proposed methods can greatly facilitate local-level cemetery data collection, mapping, query, and analysis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.320

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geography and GeologySame topicVideo Surveillance and Tracking MethodsFrench-language works237,207