MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205095874 · doi:10.5311/josis.2021.23.155

Deriving topological relations from topologically augmented direction relation matrices

2021· article· en· W4205095874 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Matthew P. Dube

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Spatial Information Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicConstraint Satisfaction and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsRelation (database)Topological conjugacyMathematicsMatrix (chemical analysis)Topology (electrical circuits)Spatial relationPure mathematicsComputer scienceGeometryCombinatoricsData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Topological relations and direction relations represent two pieces of the qualitative spatial reasoning triumvirate. Researchers have previously attempted to use the direction relation matrix to derive a topological relation, finding that no single direction relation matrix can isolate a particular topological relation. In this paper, the technique of topological augmentation is applied to the same problem, identifying a unique topological relation in 28.6% of all topologically augmented direction relation matrices, and furthermore achieving a reduction in a further 40.4% of topologically augmented direction relation matrices when compared to their vanilla direction relation matrix counterpart.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.831
Threshold uncertainty score0.622

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.009
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Spatial Information ScienceSame topicConstraint Satisfaction and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207