MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

MULTI-RESOLUTION REPRESENTATION USING GRAPH DATABASE

2022· article· en· W4280534476 on OpenAlexaff
Yan Huang, Emmanuel Stefanakis

Bibliographic record

VenueISPRS annals of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGraph Theory and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceGraph traversalGraph databaseTree traversalRepresentation (politics)DatabaseInformation retrievalGraphSpatial databaseObject (grammar)Data miningTheoretical computer scienceSpatial analysisArtificial intelligenceAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Multi-resolution representation has always been an important and popular data source for many research and applications, such as navigation, land cover, map generation, media event forecasting, etc. With one spatial object represented by distinct geometries at different resolutions, multi-resolution representation is high in complexity. Most of the current approaches for storing and retrieving multi-resolution representation are either complicated in structure, or time consuming in traversal and query. In addition, supports on direct navigation between different representations are still intricate in most of the paradigms, especially in topological map sets. To address this problem, we propose a novel approach for storing, querying, and extracting multi-resolution representation. The development of this approach is based on Neo4j, a graph database platform that is famous for its powerful query and advanced flexibility. Benefited from the intuitiveness of the proposed database structure, direct navigation between representations of one spatial object, and between groups of representations at adjacent resolutions are both available. On top of this, collaborating with the self-designed web-based interface, queries within the proposed approach truly embraced the concept of keyword search, which lower the barrier between novice users and complicate queries. In all, the proposed system demonstrates the potential of managing multi-resolution representation data through the graph database and could be a time-saver for related processes.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueISPRS annals of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciencesSame topicGraph Theory and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207