Location-Based Social Network Data for Exploring Spatial and Functional Urban Tourists and Residents Consumption Patterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Urban tourist destinations’ increasing popularity has been a catalyst for discussion about the tourist activity geographical circumscription. In this context, Big Data and more specifically location-based social networks (LBSN), appear as a valuable source of information to approach tourist and residents spatial interactions from a renewed perspective. This paper focuses on approaching similarities and differences between tourists and residents’ geographical and functional use of urban economic units. A user classificatory algorithm has been developed and applied on YELP’s Dataset for that purpose. A residents and tourists integration ratio has then been calculated and applied by types of businesses categories and their associated spatial distribution of the of 11 metropolitan areas provided in the sample: Champaign (Illinois, US), Charlotte (North Carolina, US), Cleveland (Ohio, US), Edinburgh (Scotland, UK), Las Vegas (Nevada, US), Madison (Wisconsin, US), Montreal (Quebec, CA), Pittsburgh (Pennsylvania, US), Phoenix (Arizona, US), Stuttgart (DE) and Toronto (Ontario, CA). Business category results show strong similarities in tourists and residents functional coincidence in the use of urban spaces and leisure offer, while there is a clear geographical concentration of activity for both user types in all analysed case studies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".