An Improved Fuzzy Trajectory Clustering Method for Exploring Urban Travel Patterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exploring urban travel patterns can analyze the mobility regularity of residents to provide guidance for urban traffic planning and emergency decision. Clustering methods have been widely applied to explore the hidden information from large-scale trajectory data on travel patterns exploring. How to implement soft constraints in the clustering method and evaluate the effectiveness quantitatively is still a challenge. In this study, we propose an improved trajectory clustering method based on fuzzy density-based spatial clustering of applications with noise (TC-FDBSCAN) to conduct classification on trajectory data. Firstly, we define the trajectory distance which considers the influence of different attributes and determines the corresponding weight coefficients to measure the similarity among trajectories. Secondly, membership degrees and membership functions are designed in the fuzzy clustering method as the extension of the classical DBSCAN method. Finally, trajectory data collected in Shenzhen city, China, are divided into two types (workdays and weekends) and then implemented in the experiment to explore different travel patterns. Moreover, three indices including Silhouette Coefficient, Davies–Bouldin index, and Calinski–Harabasz index are used to evaluate the effectiveness among the proposed method and other traditional clustering methods. The results also demonstrate the advantage of the proposed method.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".