MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7096637037

An Object Model For Geologic Map

2008· article· en· W7096637037 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeospatial analysisGeologic mapOntologyObject (grammar)Geographic information systemDigital mappingData model (GIS)Information system
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

National geologic map databases are presently being constructed in the U.S. and Canada, as well as in several other countries. Here, we describe an object-based model for geologic map information, specifically designed to represent digital geologic maps and related geoscientific information. Although oriented to geoscience, several fundamental issues in representing geospatial information are explored in this design, including the philosophic and cognitive basis of mapping in general, and the overall framework in which map-related information can be represented. Thus we take an ontologic approach to geospatial representation, supplemented by an epistemic view of the scientific process, which culminates in a very general model---a meta-model---for map information. Practical as well as theoretical considerations motivate this approach. Primarily, however, we describe the theoretical foundations of our meta-model, specifically semiotics, category theory, and ontology in geospatial information. Finally, we report briefly on a specific prototype data model derived from the meta-model and implemented in a commercial object-oriented GIS.

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)0.002
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.010
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.180 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeological Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207