MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4230187284 · doi:10.1177/0361198105190200113

Spatiotemporal Data Model and Query Language for Tracking Land Use Change

2005· article· en· W4230187284 on OpenAlexaff
Bo Huang, Christophe Claramunt

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Management and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObject Query LanguageComputer scienceQuery languageData model (GIS)Object (grammar)Context (archaeology)Data modelingSpatial analysisRepresentation (politics)Geographic information systemDatabaseData miningProgramming languageSargableInformation retrievalArtificial intelligenceGeographyWeb search queryRemote sensing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Management of spatiotemporal information requires a more generic and consolidated data model to facilitate applications such as tracking land use parcel changes. This paper presents such a spatiotemporal data model in the context of object databases by extending the Object Data Management Group (ODMG) standard and examines its feasibility in a land use application. This model extends the ODMG object model with a parameterized type, TimeSeries<T>, which allows the shifting of spatial types into spatiotemporal types to support the representation of a series of states (i.e., the history) of an object. An object query language (OQL), spatiotemporal OQL (STOQL), which adds spatial and temporal dimensions to ODMG's OQL, is also designed. A case study demonstrates that STOQL supports the formulation of various spatiotemporal queries pertaining to historical states of spatial objects as well as spatial changes, including spatial type substitution. The model and query language have been implemented by using an object-oriented language in a geographic information system environment.

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)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.639
Threshold uncertainty score0.974

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.006
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.328
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.103 · 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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research BoardSame topicData Management and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207