MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3086389904 · doi:10.1109/access.2020.3023376

A Framework for Spatial-Temporal Trajectory Cluster Analysis Based on Dynamic Relationships

2020· article· en· W3086389904 on OpenAlexafffund
Ivens Portugal, Paulo Alencar, Donald Cowan

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Management and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOntario Ministry of Research, Innovation and Science
KeywordsComputer scienceData miningCluster analysisMerge (version control)Spatial analysisTrajectoryCrime analysisCluster (spacecraft)Identification (biology)Temporal databaseArtificial intelligenceInformation retrievalGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In spatial-temporal data analysis, location data and its evolution through time are investigated with the goal of uncovering important information to provide novel insights. These insights, for example, may involve congestion identification in transportation, mobility patterns in urban computing, and storm prediction in weather forecasting. Clustering, one data analysis technique, groups spatial-temporal data based on location. Current spatial-temporal data analysis techniques fail to investigate relationships between spatial-temporal clusters, such as splitting from a cluster and merging with another one because of a change of properties over time. These relationships could hold valuable information about the existence of a cluster and its interactions with other clusters and trajectories. In this paper, we introduce a framework to identify, process, and analyze relationships between clusters of spatial-temporal data (e.g. enter, merge, or split). We describe its architecture and components, as well as a proposed clustering technique, the different approaches for distance calculation, and how we calculate cluster similarity of temporally separated clusters. The result of these operations are used in the identification of cluster relationships over space and time. The analysis of these relationships helps uncover hidden values that could support novel approaches to more effective decision-making. We evaluate our framework with two case studies, based on truck and human trajectories.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.010
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations16
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicData Management and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207