Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35874873›Full record

ArticleTransactions in GIS : TG2022

A conceptual model for automating spatial network analysis.

Simon Scheider, Tom de Jong

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Transactions in GIS : TG, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Simon ScheiderDepartment of Human Geography and Spatial Planning Utrecht University Utrecht the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2267-4810
Tom de JongDepartment of Logistics Stellenbosch University Stellenbosch South Africa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Spatial network analysis is a collection of methods for measuring accessibility potentials as well as for analyzing flows over transport networks. Though it has been part of the practice of geographic information systems for a long time, designing network analytical workflows still requires a considerable amount of expertise. In principle, artificial intelligence methods for workflow synthesis could be used to automate this task. This would improve the (re)usability of analytic resources. However, though underlying graph algorithms are well understood, we still lack a conceptual model that captures the required methodological know-how. The reason is that in practice this know-how goes beyond graph theory to a significant extent. In this article we suggest interpreting spatial networks in terms of quantified relations between spatial objects, where both the objects themselves and their relations can be quantified in an extensive or an intensive manner. Using this model, it becomes possible to effectively organize data sources and network functions towards common analytical goals for answering questions. We tested our model on 12 analytical tasks, and evaluated automatically synthesized workflows with network experts. Results show that standard data models are insufficient for answering questions, and that our model adds information crucial for understanding spatial network functionality.

Identifiers

PMID35874873
PMCPMC9298018

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.