MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Introduction to the OGC Geodatacube Standard Working Group

2023· article· en· W4387829015 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander Jacob, Miruna Stoicescu, Ryan Ahola, Peter Zellner, Richard Conway, Claudio Iacopino, Ingo Simonis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeographic Information Systems Studies
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInteroperabilityComputer scienceImplementationRaw dataAdded valueSoftware engineeringDatabaseWorld Wide WebProgramming languageBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past decade, a multitude of independent initiatives have developed solutions to answer the need for Analysis-Ready Data, in order to reduce the time and effort required in order to generate added value out of raw, heterogeneous data. These initiatives resulted in various GeoDataCube (GDCs) implementations, standards, data formats and best practices.Interoperability between the GDC solutions has so far not been a core concern but with the increasing amount of data served as GDCs as well as its increasing uptake, it is becoming essential to understand what exactly a GDC entails, how it was created, and how different GDCs can be used together consistently. This presentation shall focus on the OGC GeoDataCube Standards Working Group (SWG) which has recently been initiated to tackle these issues proposing viable solutions defined as a standard.

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)0.003
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.926
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.269 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeographic Information Systems StudiesFrench-language works237,207