Finding moving flock patterns among pedestrians through collective coherence
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tracking technologies are able to provide high-resolution movement data that can advance research in different fields, such as tourism management. In this specific field, developing methods to extract moving flock patterns from such data are particularly relevant to enable us to improve our knowledge of the nature of recreational use interactions, which is crucial for a good management of attractions and for designing sustainable development policies. However, ‘flocking’ has been usually associated with the form of collective movement of a large group of birds, fish, insects and certain mammals as well. Very few research efforts have been devoted in finding flock patterns associated with pedestrian movement. In this work, we propose a moving flock pattern definition and a corresponding extraction algorithm based on the notion of collective coherence. We use the term collective coherence to refer to the spatial closeness over some time duration with a minimum number of members. Furthermore, we evaluate the proposed algorithm by applying it to two different pedestrian movement datasets, which have been gathered from visitors of two recreational parks. The results show that the algorithm is capable of extracting moving flock patterns, disqualifying the patterns with flock members that remain stationary in a common place during the considered time interval.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it