An Ontology-Based Information Extraction System for Residential Land-Use Suitability Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose an Ontology-Based Information Extraction (OBIE) system to automate the extraction of the criteria and values applied in Land-Use Suitability Analysis (LUSA) from bylaw and regulation documents related to the geographic area of interest. The results obtained by our proposed LUSA OBIE system (land-use suitability criteria and their values) are presented as an ontology populated with instances of the extracted criteria and property values. This latter output ontology is incorporated into a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) model applied for constructing suitability maps for different kinds of land uses. The resulting maps may be the final desired product or can be incorporated into the cellular automata urban modeling and simulation for predicting future urban growth. A case study has been conducted where the output from LUSA OBIE is applied to help produce a suitability map for the City of Regina, Saskatchewan, to assist in the identification of suitable areas for residential development. A set of Saskatchewan bylaw and regulation documents were downloaded and input to the LUSA OBIE system. We accessed the extracted information using both the populated LUSA ontology and the set of annotated documents. In this regard, the LUSA OBIE system was effective in producing a final suitability map.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".