MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6888440185 · doi:10.20382/v16i1a5

Density approximation for moving groups

2023· article· en· W6888440185 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational Geometry (Carleton University) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Management and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKernel density estimationTrack (disk drive)Group (periodic table)Kernel (algebra)Tracking (education)Density estimationMaxima

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sets of moving entities can form groups which travel together for significant amounts of time. Tracking such groups is an important analysis task in a variety of areas, such as wildlife ecology, urban transport, or sports analysis. Correspondingly, recent years have seen a multitude of algorithms to identify and track meaningful groups in sets of moving entities. However, not only the mere existence of one or more groups is an important fact to discover; in many application areas the actual shape of the group carries meaning as well. In this paper we initiate the algorithmic study of the shape of a moving group. We use kernel density estimation to model the density within a group and show how to efficiently maintain an approximation of this density description over time. Furthermore, we track persistent maxima which give a meaningful first idea of the time-varying shape of the group. By combining several approximation techniques, we obtain a kinetic data structure that can approximately track persistent maxima efficiently.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.206 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computational Geometry (Carleton University)Same topicData Management and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207