MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2913227339 · doi:10.5539/mas.v13n2p258

Extracting Interesting Regions and Trips from Taxi Trajectory Data

2019· article· en· W2913227339 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ammar Huneiti, Omar Adwan

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Applied Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Management and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Jordan
KeywordsComputer scienceTRIPS architectureTrajectoryTaxisArtificial intelligenceRegion of interestSet (abstract data type)Identification (biology)Point of interestGlobal Positioning SystemComputer visionData scienceTransport engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increasing availability of cutting-edge location-acquisition technologies such as GPS devices, has led to the generation of huge datasets of spatial trajectories. These trajectories store important information regarding the movement of people, vehicles, robots, animals, users of social networks, etc. Many research initiatives have applied data mining techniques in order to extract useful knowledge from this data.  An important, and yet complicated, pre-processing step in mining patterns from trajectory data, is the identification of the Regions of Interest (RoI) that have been collectively navigated by a set of trajectories. The RoI’s are being manually and subjectively pre-defined by a group of experts as popular regions, regardless of the actual behaviour of the moving objects. This research emphasizes the usefulness of applying an unsupervised machine learning technique, namely Self Organizing Map (SOM), in order to identify the RoI’s associated with a trajectory dataset depending on the moving objects’ behaviour. The research experiments were conducted using 180 thousand of the trajectories generated by 442 taxis running in the city of Porto, in Portugal, and they demonstrate the ability of SOM in identifying the RoI’s and interesting taxi trips within the city.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.763

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModern Applied ScienceSame topicData Management and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207