MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

MAP ALGEBRA, SURFACE DERIVATIVES AND SPATIAL PROCESSES

2006· book-chapter· en· W967363883 on OpenAlexaff
James Conolly, Mark Lake

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2006
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicOptics and Image Analysis
Canadian institutionsTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurface (topology)Algebra over a fieldGeographyCartographyMathematicsGeometryPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: point and spatial operations In this chapter we introduce a number of point and spatial operations that can be performed on continuous field data. We begin with the use of map algebra, before moving on to the calculation of derivatives (e.g. slope and aspect) and spatial filtering (e.g. smoothing and edge detection), all of which are widely used by archaeologists. In the final section we introduce more specialised techniques that have archaeological potential. Map algebra is a point operation, whereas the other techniques discussed in this chapter are spatial operations. Point operations compute the new attribute value of a location with coordinates ( x, y ) from the attribute values in other maps at the same location ( x, y ), (Fig. 9.1b). In contrast, spatial operations compute the new attribute value of a location from the attribute values in the same map, but at other locations – those in the neighbourhood (Fig. 9.1a). The neighbourhood used in a spatial operation may or may not be spatially contiguous. For example, slope is usually calculated using the elevation values in a neighbourhood comprising the four or eight map cells immediately adjacent to the location in question (see below), but we saw in Chapter 6 how inverse distance weighting interpolates elevation values from some number of nearest spot heights, irrespective of how far away those spot heights actually are.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.172
Teacher spread0.160 · 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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicOptics and Image AnalysisFrench-language works237,207