Nonstationary Spatial Interpolation Method for Urban Model Development
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In some situations in urban modeling practice, data cannot be preserved at the highest possible level of resolution. For example, when data from different sources are collated, the areal partitioning systems may not be compatible with each other. In other cases, related but separated models (e.g., urban transportation–land use and environmental models) may have been designed to operate at different spatial scales, posing a challenge to any efforts to link them. In these and similar situations, a method for interpolating data is required to produce compatible zoning systems or data at a desired level of resolution. A nonstationary (location-specific) spatial interpolation method, which has various potential applications in transportation as well as urban modeling, is proposed. The method combines the concept of location-specific parameters of a geographically weighted regression model and the concept of variogram function of kriging used to model spatial autocorrelation. Two case studies are presented to illustrate the application of the method in situations that are common in urban and transportation analysis. The results suggest that the method can be a useful alternative for spatial interpolation when nonstationarity and spatial autocorrelation appear co-incidentally in the analysis. The model is therefore expected to help to improve the performance of urban models by providing more accurate data at desired levels of resolution.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it