Fusing Mobile Phone and Travel Survey Data to Model Urban Activity Dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A key issue to understand urban system is to characterize the activity dynamics in a city—when, where, what, and how activities happen in a city. To better understand the urban activity dynamics, city-wide and multiday activity participation sequence data, namely, activity chain as well as suitable spatiotemporal models, are needed. The commonly used household travel survey data in activity analysis suffers from limited sample size and temporal coverage. The emergence of large-scale spatiotemporal data in urban areas, such as mobile phone data, provides a new opportunity to infer urban activities and the underlying dynamics. However, the challenge is the absence of labeled activity information in mobile phone data. Consequently, how to fuse the useful information in household survey data and mobile phone data to build city-wide, multiday, and all-time activity chains becomes an important research question. Moreover, the multidimension structure of the activity data (e.g., location, start time, duration, type) makes the extraction of spatiotemporal activity patterns another difficult problem. In this study, the authors first introduce an activity chain inference model based on tensor decomposition to infer the missing activity labels in large-scale and multiday activity data, and then develop a spatiotemporal event clustering model based on DBSCAN, called STE-DBSCAN, to identify the spatiotemporal activity patterns. The proposed approaches achieved good accuracy and produced patterns with a high level of interpretability.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".