INVESTIGATING GEOSPARQL REQUIREMENTS FOR PARTICIPATORY URBAN PLANNING
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. We propose that participatory GIS (PGIS) activities including participatory urban planning can be made more efficient and effective if spatial reasoning rules are integrated with PGIS tools to simplify engagement for public contributors. Spatial reasoning is used to describe relationships between spatial entities. These relationships can be evaluated quantitatively or qualitatively using geometrical algorithms, ontological relations, and topological methods. Semantic web services utilize tools and methods that can facilitate spatial reasoning. GeoSPARQL, introduced by OGC, is a spatial reasoning standard used to make declarations about entities (graphical contributions) that take the form of a subject-predicate-object triple or statement. GeoSPARQL uses three basic methods to infer topological relationships between spatial entities, including: OGC's simple feature topology, RCC8, and the DE-9IM model. While these methods are comprehensive in their ability to define topological relationships between spatial entities, they are often inadequate for defining complex relationships that exist in the spatial realm. Particularly relationships between urban entities, such as those between a bus route, the collection of associated bus stops and their overall surroundings as an urban planning pattern. In this paper we investigate common qualitative spatial reasoning methods as a preliminary step to enhancing the capabilities of GeoSPARQL in an online participatory GIS framework in which reasoning is used to validate plans based on standard patterns that can be found in an efficient/effective urban environment.
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 | 0.018 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".