Indoor Location Data for Tracking Human Behaviours: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Real-time location systems (RTLS) record locations of individuals over time and are valuable sources of spatiotemporal data that can be used to understand patterns of human behaviour. Location data are used in a wide breadth of applications, from locating individuals to contact tracing or monitoring health markers. To support the use of RTLS in many applications, the varied ways location data can describe patterns of human behaviour should be examined. The objective of this review is to investigate behaviours described using indoor location data, and particularly the types of features extracted from RTLS data to describe behaviours. Four major applications were identified: health status monitoring, consumer behaviours, developmental behaviour, and workplace safety/efficiency. RTLS data features used to analyse behaviours were categorized into four groups: dwell time, activity level, trajectory, and proximity. Passive sensors that provide non-uniform data streams and features with lower complexity were common. Few studies analysed social behaviours between more than one individual at once. Less than half the health status monitoring studies examined clinical validity against gold-standard measures. Overall, spatiotemporal data from RTLS technologies are useful to identify behaviour patterns, provided there is sufficient richness in location data, the behaviour of interest is well-characterized, and a detailed feature analysis is undertaken.
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 | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".