ArticleScientific reports2025
Cognition-enhanced geospatial decision framework integrating fuzzy FCA, surprisingly popular method, and a large language model.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study introduces a cognition-enhanced framework for geospatial decision-making by integrating Fuzzy Formal Concept Analysis (FCA), the Surprisingly Popular (SP) method, and a Large Language Model (GPT-4o). Our approach captures cognitive influences that are often overlooked in traditional geospatial analyses. Fuzzy FCA is used to extract interpretable concept hierarchies from spatial data, while the GPT-4o model estimates SP scores, identifying choices that reflect underlying cognitive biases. These cognitively informed features are combined within machine learning models, improving both prediction accuracy and interpretability. Experiments on real-world urban mobility and environmental risk scenarios demonstrate significant performance gains, with models like XGBoost achieving an accuracy of 0.8412. We also introduce a novel method for evaluating the cognitive validity of LLM-generated model explanations, which involves assessing how well these explanations align with human intuition and reasoning. Our results show that incorporating cognitive elements into geospatial models not only improves outcomes but also bridges the gap between data-driven predictions and human decision-making. This framework offers broad potential for applications in GIS, urban planning, and environmental management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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 Socratic graph.