Spatial data science languages: commonalities and needs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent workshops brought together several developers, educators and users of software packages extending popular languages for spatial data handling, with a primary focus on R, Python and Julia. Common challenges discussed included handling of spatial or spatio-temporal support, geodetic coordinates, in-memory vector data formats, data cubes, inter-package dependencies, packaging upstream libraries, differences in habits or conventions between the GIS and physical modeling communities, and statistical models. The following set of recommendations have been formulated:(i) considering software problems across data science language silos helps to understand and standardise analysis approaches, also outside the domain of formal standardisation bodies;(ii) whether attribute variables have block or point support, and whether they are spatially intensive or extensive has consequences for permitted operations, and hence for software implementing those;(iii) handling geometries on the sphere rather than on the flat plane requires modifications to the logic of simple features,(iv) managing communities and fostering diversity is a necessary, on-going effort, and(v) tools for cross-language development need more attention and support.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.134 | 0.128 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.080 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.029 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".