Multi-Source Spatial Entity Linkage

Suela Isaj, Esteban Zimányi, Torben Bach Pedersen · SSDBM · 2019 · computer-science · 10.1145/3340964.3340979 · record isaj2019-spatial-entity-linkage
tag layer · index · concepts · authors · עברית

Where this record's text came from. faceted 2026-08 by reading the locally held text (pdftext); every evidence string verified as an exact substring of that text before merging. Extraction is clean prose apart from mangled inline math and algorithm listings ((cid:104)/(cid:105) angle-bracket glyphs, split fractions); all quotes were taken from unaffected prose and substring-verified. The paper has no dedicated limitations section, so the limitations recorded are self-stated constraints scattered through Sects. 8, 9.3 and 9.4. The final claim_relation is typed 'contradicts' as the nearest available label for an explicit critique of named prior systems (the schema offers no 'critiques' type); the paper also compares against supervised learners and clustering baselines, which the relation vocabulary cannot express. Replication status is untested: the paper reports new experiments, not a replication, and reports no independent replication of its own results. 2026-08-14 and 2026-08-15 schema-0.3 passes: every quote verified as an exact substring of the staged text and anchored at merge time; concept terms verified present; every edge endpoint an existing node.

Some quotes on this page contain (cid:NN). The PDF this text was extracted from encodes 6 characters in a way that names no letter, so the extractor could not say what they were. The quotes keep them because a quote is reproduced exactly or it proves nothing — the marks are the source’s, not the tagging’s.

How to read this page. The article itself is not reproduced here — this paper is not cleared for redistribution, so what follows is the tag layer alone. The evidence sentences are withheld with the article. The table at the foot lists every tag the record carries; each row names the facet it belongs to, and the whose words column says whether the tag records the paper's own wording or the tagger's sentence about the paper. Every tag links to each other paper in the corpus carrying it. The machine-readable edition of the same thing is the TEI file beside this one, where the tags live in standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.

Other fields define these differently the same word, defined another way in another discipline
precision 10 fields · ground truth 5 fields · recall 2 fields

Tags on this paper

Every tag the record carries, each linking to every other paper in the corpus that carries it. A tag appears here whether or not its words occur in the article — the spans below are only the ones a sentence in this paper licenses. Of the 14 concept tags on this paper, 9 are grounded in a quoted sentence. 4 carry the tagger's gloss of what the term means in this paper, which is not something the article can license.

entity resolution spatial entity linkage blocking Pareto optimality precision recall spatial entity spatial object ground truth spatial blocking QuadFlex pairwise comparisons SkyRank QuadSky the blocking structure's splitting criterion is changed from CAPACITY to density and diagonal, because a count of points is not a spatial quantity: a dense city block should split before its capacity is reached, and two farm points far apart may still be one entity a point is allowed to be assigned to MORE THAN ONE child of the split, so that two nearby entities are not separated merely because a dividing line happened to fall between them the address is deliberately NOT compared by edit distance, because syntactic and spatial closeness come apart in both directions - one changed digit is 650 metres, eight added characters is the same building - and is instead scored by equality, inclusion, or nothing category and keyword similarity is taken as the MAXIMUM over all cross-pairs of the two entities' keyword lists under a Wordnet-based measure, rather than by string matching, so that synonyms count as agreement the weighted scoring function is removed entirely and replaced by Pareto optimality: points on one frontier have equal utility, so the method says a pair is better than another WITHOUT quantifying by how much, and needs no attribute weights to do it the whole threshold problem is collapsed to ONE number - which skyline level separates the classes - in place of a threshold per attribute similarity plus another for the function that aggregates them THE UNSUPERVISED CUT-OFF WORKS BECAUSE THE POSITIVE CLASS IS NOT A CLUSTER: matching pairs are scattered, since several different patterns can make a match, so instead of intra-class compactness the method separates them by their distance to the NEGATIVE class, and sets the cut-off where that inter-class distance starts to increase the attributes used to BUILD the ground truth - phone, opening hours - are excluded from the similarity computation, and the stated reason is that they are used to construct the ground truth quadtree F-measure system-or-tool-building

Legend

relation to other work	`claim_relations`	how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies
claim type	`claim_type`	the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null
concept edge	`concept_edges`	an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it
concept	`concepts`	an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it
content tag	`content_tags`	a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper
control	`controls`	an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation
limitation	`limitations`	what the paper says its evidence cannot support
mechanism	`mechanisms`	how the reported effect is said to come about
method	`method`	how the paper produced its evidence
phenomenon	`phenomenon`	the effect or regularity under study
sense	`senses`	a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it

The paper

The full text is not reproduced here. This article is not cleared for redistribution, so the page carries the tag layer only. Its evidence sentences are withheld; the grounding status remains with each tag, and the article itself is at https://doi.org/10.1145/3340964.3340979. The reading view exists for the papers whose licence permits it.

Every tag on this page

claim_relations 5 · claim_type 1 · concept_edges 6 · concepts 9 · content_tags 7 · controls 1 · limitations 8 · mechanisms 8 · method 1 · phenomenon 1 · senses 4

Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; 4 of 6 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.

facet	tag	field	conf.	whose words
claim_type	method Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_type`		the paper's words
phenomenon	spatial entity linkage across location-based sources Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`phenomenon`		the paper's words
method	system-or-tool-building Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: system-or-tool-building	`method`		the paper's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: the blocking structure's splitting criterion is changed from CAPACITY to density and diagonal, because a count of points is not a spatial quantity: a dense city block should split before its capacity is reached, and two farm points far apart may still be one entity	`mechanisms[0]`	0.85	the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: a point is allowed to be assigned to MORE THAN ONE child of the split, so that two nearby entities are not separated merely because a dividing line happened to fall between them	`mechanisms[1]`	0.95	the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: the address is deliberately NOT compared by edit distance, because syntactic and spatial closeness come apart in both directions - one changed digit is 650 metres, eight added characters is the same building - and is instead scored by equality, inclusion, or nothing	`mechanisms[2]`	0.95	the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: category and keyword similarity is taken as the MAXIMUM over all cross-pairs of the two entities' keyword lists under a Wordnet-based measure, rather than by string matching, so that synonyms count as agreement	`mechanisms[3]`	0.95	the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: the weighted scoring function is removed entirely and replaced by Pareto optimality: points on one frontier have equal utility, so the method says a pair is better than another WITHOUT quantifying by how much, and needs no attribute weights to do it	`mechanisms[4]`	0.95	the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: the whole threshold problem is collapsed to ONE number - which skyline level separates the classes - in place of a threshold per attribute similarity plus another for the function that aggregates them	`mechanisms[5]`	0.95	the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: THE UNSUPERVISED CUT-OFF WORKS BECAUSE THE POSITIVE CLASS IS NOT A CLUSTER: matching pairs are scattered, since several different patterns can make a match, so instead of intra-class compactness the method separates them by their distance to the NEGATIVE class, and sets the cut-off where that inter-class distance starts to increase	`mechanisms[6]`	0.85	the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: the attributes used to BUILD the ground truth - phone, opening hours - are excluded from the similarity computation, and the stated reason is that they are used to construct the ground truth	`mechanisms[7]`	0.85	the tagger's words
limitations	Ground truth for the full dataset is mostly automatic, not manually checked, because manual labelling at that scale was not feasible. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`limitations[0]`		the tagger's words
limitations	Performance on the full dataset is lower than on the manually labelled sample, possibly an artefact of the automatic labelling rather than of the method. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`limitations[1]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The skyline-based algorithms could in principle degrade to cubic complexity. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`limitations[2]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The ranking step is computationally expensive because it requires repeated Pareto frontier computation. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`limitations[3]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The attributes that define a correct match are the ones excluded from the scoring, so identity is fixed by whichever fields were reserved. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any accuracy figure reported here: the attributes used to construct the ground truth are deliberately excluded from the similarity computation, so what counts as the same entity is defined by one set of attributes and predicted from a different set	`limitations[4]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	String similarity is stated to be inapplicable to the attribute that looks most like a key, with a worked counterexample. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any use of string-similarity metrics on addresses: the paper states they cannot be used, giving two addresses with a Levenshtein similarity of 0.963 that are 650 meters apart	`limitations[5]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	Coordinates fail as an identifier in both directions at once. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any linkage of these sources on coordinates: different spatial entities may share coordinates, as with shops in a shopping mall, and one entity may appear at coordinates 82 meters apart in two sources	`limitations[6]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	The methods this work builds on were fitted to a different kind of entity, and the authors say the resemblance cannot be assumed. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: carrying an entity-resolution method over to spatial entities: the authors state such solutions are learned on human entity datasets and that the resemblance of behaviours between the two cannot merely be assumed	`limitations[7]`	1.0	the tagger's words
controls	manual checking of the labels on a sample of the pairs - 1,500 in the sample dataset and about 10,000 overall - against the automatic labels inferred from shared website or phone number Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that the automatic labelling is wrong in the two ways the paper names: the same entity holding a different phone number or website, and different entities sharing a phone number · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): partial	`controls[0]`	0.85	the tagger's words
concepts	spatial entity linkage Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: spatial entity linkage	`concepts[1]`		the paper's words
concepts	spatial entity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: spatial entity	`concepts[6]`		the paper's words
concepts	spatial object Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: spatial object	`concepts[7]`		the paper's words
concepts	ground truth Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ground truth	`concepts[8]`		the paper's words
concepts	spatial blocking Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: spatial blocking	`concepts[9]`		the paper's words
concepts	QuadFlex Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: QuadFlex	`concepts[10]`	0.9	the paper's words
concepts	pairwise comparisons Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: pairwise comparisons	`concepts[11]`	0.9	the paper's words
concepts	SkyRank Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: SkyRank	`concepts[12]`	0.9	the paper's words
concepts	QuadSky Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: QuadSky	`concepts[13]`	0.9	the paper's words
senses	spatial entity vs spatial object - THE DISTINCTION THE WHOLE PAPER RESTS ON: an object is identified by its coordinates alone, an entity is not, so the two words name things that need different identity conditions even though both sit at a point on a map Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[0]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	identity - AS A COMBINATION OF ATTRIBUTES, NOT A KEY: the paper states outright that what makes a spatial entity itself is several attributes together, and that inconsistency between sources makes that combination hard to infer Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[1]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	similarity - SYNTACTIC AND SPATIAL COME APART: a one-character change in an address is a 0.963 string similarity and 650 metres on the ground, which is why the paper refuses ordinary string metrics for exactly the field that looks most like an identifier Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[2]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	`QuadSky` - A PIPELINE WHOSE FOUR PARTS ARE NAMED TWICE OVER, ONCE BY FUNCTION AND ONCE BY ALGORITHM. `Quotation withheld` Three of the four carry a coined proper name in a parenthesis and one does not - `pairwise comparisons` is the stage the authors did not invent anything for, and the naming records that asymmetry exactly. A reader tracking `SkyRank` and a reader tracking `ranking the pairs` are following the same stage under a name that belongs to a different level. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[3]`	0.9	the tagger's words
claim_relations	extends → the authors' earlier conference paper [38] (QuadFlex + SkyEx) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[0]`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	builds-on → the skyline computation method of [38] for spatial blocking and pairwise comparison Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[1]`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	builds-on → the lattice-based skyline algorithm of [42] Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[2]`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	builds-on → WordNet [20] and the Wu & Palmer semantic similarity measure [21] Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[3]`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	contradicts → the spatial entity matching tools of Karam et al. [17], Berjawi et al. [18] and Morana et al. [19] Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[4]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	EVIDENCE CORRECTED (RE-GROUNDED) · spatial entity —distinct-from→ spatial object Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. EVIDENCE CORRECTED: RE-GROUNDED. The old span named only 'spatial object' and began mid-contrast ('However, while ...'). This sentence names both AND CARRIES THE DIFFERENTIA: an object is fully determined by its coordinates, an entity is geo-located AND has more. A distinction with its criterion. — strength of the relation: 1 also in: spatial entity · spatial object	`concept_edges[0]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	spatial entity —distinct-from→ spatial object Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: THE AXIS IS WHETHER IDENTITY BEYOND POSITION IS PART OF THE THING. 'Quotation withheld' Both are located; only one carries an identity, and that is the whole of the distinction. · strength of the relation: 1 · note: RE-GROUNDS another row of this record: the old span named ONE endpoint. also in: spatial entity · spatial object	`concept_edges[2]`	0.9	the tagger's words
concept_edges	spatial blocking —part-of→ QuadSky Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 1 · note: 'consists of' is the containment cue and it is in the gate's list, so this edge is cue-tested. The whole is named first and the parts second - CONTAINER_FIRST order. · the relation stated: QuadSky consists of four main parts: spatial blocking (QuadFlex), pairwise comparisons, ranking the pairs (SkyRank), and labelling the pairs also in: spatial blocking · QuadSky	`concept_edges[3]`	0.95	the tagger's words
concept_edges	QuadFlex —part-of→ QuadSky Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 1 · note: 'consists of' is the containment cue and it is in the gate's list, so this edge is cue-tested. The whole is named first and the parts second - CONTAINER_FIRST order. · the relation stated: QuadSky consists of four main parts: spatial blocking (QuadFlex), pairwise comparisons, ranking the pairs (SkyRank), and labelling the pairs also in: QuadFlex · QuadSky	`concept_edges[4]`	0.95	the tagger's words
concept_edges	pairwise comparisons —part-of→ QuadSky Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 1 · note: 'consists of' is the containment cue and it is in the gate's list, so this edge is cue-tested. The whole is named first and the parts second - CONTAINER_FIRST order. · the relation stated: QuadSky consists of four main parts: spatial blocking (QuadFlex), pairwise comparisons, ranking the pairs (SkyRank), and labelling the pairs also in: pairwise comparisons · QuadSky	`concept_edges[5]`	0.95	the tagger's words
concept_edges	SkyRank —part-of→ QuadSky Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 1 · note: 'consists of' is the containment cue and it is in the gate's list, so this edge is cue-tested. The whole is named first and the parts second - CONTAINER_FIRST order. · the relation stated: QuadSky consists of four main parts: spatial blocking (QuadFlex), pairwise comparisons, ranking the pairs (SkyRank), and labelling the pairs also in: SkyRank · QuadSky	`concept_edges[6]`	0.95	the tagger's words
content_tags	EVIDENCE CORRECTED (RE-GROUNDED) · Sources describing the same physical world disagree: each covers only part of it, with different attributes, sometimes contradicting each other. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. EVIDENCE CORRECTED: RE-GROUNDED. The published string was not verbatim in EITHER copy of the paper. A quote field promises the author's words; this held a copy with the line-break hyphen closed in 'at- tributes'. Re-cut from the paper as it stands; the closing was correct scholarship and silently unverifiable.	`content_tags.findings[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	EVIDENCE CORRECTED (RE-GROUNDED) · The SkyEx-* algorithms reach 0.85 precision and 0.85 recall on a manually labeled set of 1,500 pairs. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. EVIDENCE CORRECTED: RE-GROUNDED. The published string was not verbatim in EITHER copy of the paper. A quote field promises the author's words; this held 'QuadSky achieves 0.85 precision and 0.85 recall'. The paper attributes those figures to 'our novel SkyEx-* family of algorithms', which is the LABELLING STEP of QuadSky - one of its four parts, beside QuadFlex, pairwise comparison and SkyRank. Naming the pipeline where the paper names the classifier moves a measured result onto a larger object than the one measured.	`content_tags.findings[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	spatial entity linkage Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. also in: spatial entity linkage	`content_tags.definitions[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	EVIDENCE CORRECTED (RE-GROUNDED) · 0.85 precision / 0.85 recall — QuadSky on a manually labelled set of 1,500 pairs Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. EVIDENCE CORRECTED: RE-GROUNDED. The published string was not verbatim in EITHER copy of the paper. A quote field promises the author's words; this held 'QuadSky achieves 0.85 precision and 0.85 recall'. The paper attributes those figures to 'our novel SkyEx-* family of algorithms', which is the LABELLING STEP of QuadSky - one of its four parts, beside QuadFlex, pairwise comparison and SkyRank. Naming the pipeline where the paper names the classifier moves a measured result onto a larger object than the one measured.	`content_tags.quantities[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	0.87 precision / 0.6 recall — QuadSky on a semi-manually labelled set of 777,452 pairs Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted.	`content_tags.quantities[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	EVIDENCE CORRECTED (RE-GROUNDED) · precision Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. EVIDENCE CORRECTED: RE-GROUNDED. The published string was not verbatim in EITHER copy of the paper. A quote field promises the author's words; this held 'QuadSky achieves 0.85 precision and 0.85 recall'. The paper attributes those figures to 'our novel SkyEx-* family of algorithms', which is the LABELLING STEP of QuadSky - one of its four parts, beside QuadFlex, pairwise comparison and SkyRank. Naming the pipeline where the paper names the classifier moves a measured result onto a larger object than the one measured. also in: precision	`content_tags.statistics[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	EVIDENCE CORRECTED (RE-GROUNDED) · recall Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. EVIDENCE CORRECTED: RE-GROUNDED. The published string was not verbatim in EITHER copy of the paper. A quote field promises the author's words; this held 'QuadSky achieves 0.85 precision and 0.85 recall'. The paper attributes those figures to 'our novel SkyEx-* family of algorithms', which is the LABELLING STEP of QuadSky - one of its four parts, beside QuadFlex, pairwise comparison and SkyRank. Naming the pipeline where the paper names the classifier moves a measured result onto a larger object than the one measured. also in: recall	`content_tags.statistics[1]`		the tagger's words

Interpretive choices

Tags that could not be placed in the text:

none — every tag was located in the text

What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.