Correcting Bias in Crowdsourced Data to Map Bicycle Ridership of All Bicyclists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditional methods of counting bicyclists are resource-intensive and generate data with sparse spatial and temporal detail. Previous research suggests big data from crowdsourced fitness apps offer a new source of bicycling data with high spatial and temporal resolution. However, crowdsourced bicycling data are biased as they oversample recreational riders. Our goals are to quantify geographical variables, which can help in correcting bias in crowdsourced, data and to develop a generalized method to correct bias in big crowdsourced data on bicycle ridership in different settings in order to generate maps for cities representative of all bicyclists at a street-level spatial resolution. We used street-level ridership data for 2016 from a crowdsourced fitness app (Strava), geographical covariate data, and official counts from 44 locations across Maricopa County, Arizona, USA (training data); and 60 locations from the city of Tempe, within Maricopa (test data). First, we quantified the relationship between Strava and official ridership data volumes. Second, we used a multi-step approach with variable selection using LASSO followed by Poisson regression to integrate geographical covariates, Strava, and training data to correct bias. Finally, we predicted bias-corrected average annual daily bicyclist counts for Tempe and evaluated the model’s accuracy using the test data. We found a correlation between the annual ridership data from Strava and official counts (R2 = 0.76) in Maricopa County for 2016. The significant variables for correcting bias were: The proportion of white population, median household income, traffic speed, distance to residential areas, and distance to green spaces. The model could correct bias in crowdsourced data from Strava in Tempe with 86% of road segments being predicted within a margin of ±100 average annual bicyclists. Our results indicate that it is possible to map ridership for cities at the street-level by correcting bias in crowdsourced bicycle ridership data, with access to adequate data from official count programs and geographical covariates at a comparable spatial and temporal resolution.
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 | 0.011 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".