MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4405080458 · doi:10.51926/iste.9159.ch5

Délimitation morphologique des agglomérations urbaines : comparaison de méthodes fractales et non fractales

2024· book-chapter· fr· W4405080458 on OpenAlexaff
Gaëtan Montero, Cécile Tannier, Isabelle Thomas

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languagefr
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDBSCANHumanitiesGeographyMathematicsCluster analysisArtStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La délimitation des villes représente un défi pour les aménageurs et pour les scientifiques. Trois méthodes de délimitation morphologique des villes sont comparées dans ce chapitre : l’A-DBSCAN (Approximate- Density-Based Spatial Clustering of Application with Noise), les Natural Cities et la méthode fractale MorphoLim. Ces trois méthodes sont ensuite appliquées pour la délimitation morphologique de la ville de Bruxelles (Belgique).

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLand Use and Ecosystem Services→French-language works237,207→