MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7025197095

Toward the Development of LADM-based Marine Cadastres: Is LADM Applicable to Marine Cadastres?

2016· article· en· W7025197095 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Repository (Delft University of Technology) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Modeling in Geospatial Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCadastreRelation (database)HydrographyExtension (predicate logic)Domain (mathematical analysis)Relevance (law)Function (biology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hoogsteden and Robertson (1998; 1999) were among very few early publications that supported the idea that consideration is to be given to the extension of “on-land” cadastral system into the offshore. It was circa 2001 that the terms “marine cadastre” or “marine cadastral” were first explicitly used in scholarly media and at professional conferences (Fowler and Tremi 2001; Collier, Leahy and Williamson 2001; Hirst and Robertson 2001; Ng'ang'a et al, 2001; Sutherland, Nichols and Monahan 2001; Todd 2001). Most publications, since then, that addressed the marine concept cadastre concept, acknowledged the obvious 3- dimensional (3D) marine spaces and support the need for marine cadastres to multipurpose in function (Ng’ang’a, Sutherland and Nichols 2002; Binns and Williamson 2003; Binns et al, 2004; Ng'ang'a et al, 2004; Fulmer 2007). From a literature review by the authors of this paper, no publication sufficiently addressed any ascription to an appropriately applicable data standard for marine cadastres. The Land Administration Domain Model (ISO 19152: 2012) (LADM) conceptual standard has been referenced in scholarly and professional works to have explicit relevance to 3D cadastres in exposed land- and built environments. These sources, however, only cursorily make reference to LADM’s applicability to marine cadastres (Lemmen et al, 2005; Lemmen and van Oosterom 2011; Lemmen 2012; de Almeida, Ellul and Rodrigues-de-Carvalho 2013; Tjia 2014; Eftychia 2015). Canadian Hydrographic Service & Geoscience Australia (2016) presents the most comprehensive modelling, to date, that refers to LADM in relation to marine cadastres. The authors propose an extension of the S- 100 IHO Universal Hydrographic Data Model into the development of the S-121 IHO standard, to handle maritime limits and boundaries. However, the proposed S-121 standard is not a pure LADM-based data model but seeks to build some components that would conform to ISO 19152. This paper attempts to the question “How applicable is LADM, as a published cadastral data standard, to marine cadastres?” The given answers are based on a list of reasonable criteria, developed from relevant literature reviews, and used to assess the LADM standard. It is concluded that LADM is indeed applicable, as published and as a whole, to marine cadastres. This can be good news to those jurisdictions who are seeking to develop marine cadastres in that they can reasonably trust the LADM as an applicable data 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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.235
Threshold uncertainty score0.522

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.219 · 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