MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395112800 · doi:10.1038/s41597-024-03275-3

A new commercial boundary dataset for metropolitan areas in the USA and Canada, built from open data

2024· article· en· W4395112800 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Byeonghwa Jeong, Jeff Allen, Karen Chapple

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Data · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Mobility and Location-Based Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsMetropolitan areaBoundary (topology)GeographyRegional scienceCluster analysisData collectionData scienceSegmentationEconomic geographyCartographyComputer scienceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is to define the geographic boundaries of commercial areas by creating a consistent definition, combining various commercial area types, including downtowns, retail centres, financial districts, and other employment subcentres. Our research involved the collection of office, retail and job density data from 69 metropolitan regions across USA and Canada. Using this data, we conducted an unsupervised image segmentation model and clustering methods to identify distinctive commercial geographic boundaries. As a result, we identified 23,751 commercial areas, providing a detailed perspective on the commercial landscape of metropolitan areas in the USA and Canada. In addition, the generated boundaries were successfully validated through comparison with previously established commerce-related boundaries. The output of this study has implications for urban and regional planning and economic development, delivering valuable insights into the overall commercial geography in the region. The commercial boundary and used codes are freely available on the School of Cities Github, and users can reuse, reproduce and modify the boundaries.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.464
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0070.002
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 head0.161
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.257 · 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
GenreDataset

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific DataSame topicHuman Mobility and Location-Based AnalysisFrench-language works237,207