Understanding Google Location History as a Tool for Travel Diary Data Acquisition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding human mobility within urban settings is fundamental for urban and transport planning. Travel demand modeling and planning typically rely on data that are collected from large-scale household travel surveys (i.e., origin–destination surveys) and compiled into single- or multiple-day travel diaries. The laborious task of collecting these data has left traditional methods with numerous limitations, resulting in significant trade-offs in regard to accuracy, sample size, and study duration, while also being vulnerable to reporting and transcription error. Rising mobile phone ownership has provided opportunities to acquire expansive cellular network data from service providers and location-based service data through smartphone applications. At the same time, the Google Maps smartphone application provides built-in infrastructure that can passively collect detailed location information from user smartphone devices. The resulting data are known as Google location history (GLH). To better understand the potential of these data offerings in transportation modeling and planning, GLH data passively collected from five different smartphones following prescribed itineraries over 12 days was evaluated. As 51% of 934 locations and 32% of 888 trips were matched to the pre-determined travel diary data, it was determined that GLH data does not currently appear to be an adequate tool for travel diary data collection. On average, locations that were missed by GLH were shorter (mean of 355 s), whereas locations that were identified were longer (mean of 762 s).
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 | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".