MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Data Structure: Spatial Data on the Web

2017· other· en· W4242803917 on OpenAlexaff
Stefan Steiniger, Andrew Hunter

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Encyclopedia of Geography · 2017
Typeother
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Management and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceThe InternetSpatial analysisWeb mappingGRASPHeading (navigation)Service (business)Geographic information systemWorld Wide WebDatabaseGeographyCartographyWeb navigationRemote sensing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Internet is now the main source of information. Most human activities take spatial information into account, and spatial data over the web are prominent in our daily life. We look at spatial data when we want to know about weather conditions and forecasts, for travel directions when we are heading off on vacation, or for a better grasp of online news that can be mapped, for example, a map of average family income per county. Because geographic data are big, and users dislike waiting to see a weather map or a travel route, specific data structures for efficiently transferring spatial data have been developed. These data structures are implemented as web data formats in which the geographic data can be “stored, sorted and packed.” Examples of such formats include GML, KML, GeoJSON, GeoRSS, and so on, and web data service standards such as WMS, WCS and WFS.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesOpen science
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 score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0270.008
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.252 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Encyclopedia of GeographySame topicData Management and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207