Exploring the Citywide Human Mobility Patterns of Taxi Trips through a Topic-Modeling Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding human mobility patterns is of great importance for a wide range of applications from social networks to transportation planning. Toward this end, the spatial-temporal information of a large-scale dataset of taxi trips was collected via GPS, from March 10 to 23, 2014, in Beijing. The data contain trips generated by a great portion of taxi vehicles citywide. We revealed that the geographic displacement of those trips follows the power law distribution and the corresponding travel time follows a mixture of the exponential and power law distribution. To identify human mobility patterns, a topic model with the latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) algorithm was proposed to infer the sixty-five key topics. By measuring the variation of trip displacement over time, we find that the travel distance in the morning rush hour is much shorter than that in the other time. As for daily patterns, it shows that taxi mobility presents weekly regularity both on weekdays and on weekends. Among different days in the same week, mobility patterns on Tuesday and Wednesday are quite similar. By quantifying the trip distance along time, we find that Topic 44 exhibits dominant patterns, which means distance less than 10 km is predominant no matter what time in a day. The findings could be references for travelers to arrange trips and policymakers to formulate sound traffic management policies.
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) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 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".