Remote sensing and social sensing for socioeconomic systems: A comparison study between nighttime lights and location-based social media at the 500 m spatial resolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the advent of “social sensing” in the Big Data era, location-based social media (LBSM) data are increasingly used to explore anthropogenic activities and their impacts on the environment. This study converts a typical kind of LBSM data, geo-tagged tweets, into raster images at the 500 m spatial resolution and compares them with the new generation nighttime lights (NTL) image products, the Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS) Day/Night Band (DNB) monthly image composites. The results show that the monthly tweet images are significantly correlated with the VIIRS-DNB images at the pixel level. The tweet images have nearly the same ability on estimating electric power consumption and better performance on assessing personal incomes and population than the NTL images. Tweeted areas (i.e. the pixels with at least one posted tweet) are closer to satellite-derived built-up/urban areas than lit areas in NTL imagery, making tweet images an alternative to delimit extents of human activities. Moreover, the monthly tweet images do not show apparent seasonal changes, and the values of tweet images are more stable across different months than VIIRS-DNB monthly image composites. This study explores the potential of LBSM data at relatively fine spatiotemporal resolutions to estimate or map socioeconomic factors as an alternative to NTL images in the United States.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".