MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2754554435 · doi:10.3141/2643-14

Incident Detection Through Twitter

2017· article· en· W2754554435 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anil Yazici, Sandeep Mudigonda, Camille Kamga

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicComplex Network Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersonally identifiable informationSocial mediaAgency (philosophy)Computer scienceIncident reportEvent (particle physics)HotlineInformation retrievalWorld Wide WebComputer securitySociologyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traffic incident information is disseminated via Twitter from various types of accounts. It is more common to find active or transitive verbs and adverbs in tweets from personal accounts because individuals report personal experiences (e.g., “just saw an accident”). Tweets from an organization or agency [e.g., 511 (a telephone hotline for transportation information widely used in the United States and Canada), departments of transportation] are more structured and commonly include nouns and past participles (e.g., “one lane blocked”). Organization accounts mostly provide incident location, type, severity, and so on, whereas personal tweets do not usually provide such details. However, an agency tweets about an incident usually after the incident management (IM) officials have already been notified. Because of this timing, a personal tweet is more likely to carry useful “new” information for IM purposes. This study investigated the detection of traffic incidents through Twitter feeds by using these differences in structure and information content found in organization and personal social media accounts. Tweets collected via the Twitter public application programming interface were manually coded and treated separately as either personal or organizational, and the “dictionaries” used to perform relevancy classification were derived separately. Combinations of dictionaries (i.e., personal only, organizational only, personal and organizational) were used for “term frequency–inverse document frequency” and naïve Bayesian analysis. It was shown that analysis specific to account types helped achieve better accuracy in classification for targeting relevant tweets. Therefore, account-specific analysis should be considered for more efficient and effective event detection for IM purposes.

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)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.008

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations15
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research BoardSame topicComplex Network Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207