Clustering spatial autoregressive kriging model for climate: A bibliometric analysis approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Climate change is caused by temperature, rainfall, and wind variation in locations that last a long time. This change can be described and predicted using a spatial model, one of which is the Clustering Spatial Autoregressive (SAR) Kriging model. Therefore, this research aims to conduct a bibliometric analysis in a spatial and Clustering SAR Kriging model on climate change. It presents a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) with the development of the Clustering SAR Kriging model, incorporating articles from the Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, Dimensions AI, and Scopus databases from 2011-2021. Furthermore, two stages of analysis have been conducted, first, bibliometric analysis was performed for mapping and thematic evolution using VOSviewer software and R-biblioshiny. This analysis generated 185 papers after conducting a duplication check and developed a network of research on evolutionary subject matters at this stage. Second, research subjects were analyzed using the Clustering SAR Kriging model. More screening criteria were followed, and 18 articles were obtained for the SLR analysis. Furthermore, the development of the Clustering SAR Kriging model was observed for the prediction and description of climate change. The results are predicted to benefit applicable businesses to predict climate phenomena in unobserved places.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".