MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Map Generalization

2017· other· en· W4230227854 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Encyclopedia of Geography · 2017
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeographic Information Systems Studies
Canadian institutionsInterDigital (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCartographic generalizationGeneralizationComputer scienceAbstractionAutomationSelection (genetic algorithm)Geographic information systemData scienceFocus (optics)Process (computing)Range (aeronautics)Data explorationInformation retrievalGeographyData miningArtificial intelligenceCartographyMathematicsVisualizationEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Map generalization is concerned with the optimal display of geographic information in map form. It involves the careful selection of data and the use of a range of abstraction techniques that seek to give emphasis to what is important, while still including sufficient contextualizing information. If geographic phenomena are stored at fine levels of detail, the goal of automated map generalization is to derive maps at coarser (smaller) scales. Traditionally, the focus has been on paper maps, but increasingly map generalization services are available via the web, and accessible to users with relatively little cartographic knowledge who wish to integrate data from multiple sources (including their own). These high levels of automation require us to make explicit the relationships and behaviors among geographic phenomena, in order that we can reason about the complex decision‐making process that is cartographic design.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.278 · 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