Modeling intra-urban human activity patterns using crowdsourcing GPS and Geosocial Media Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The way people live in cities forms human activity patterns, which affects how urban systems work. Therefore, it is essential to understand human activity patterns, where precise prediction of human movements and mechanistic modelling of human activity patterns are the two keys. Most of existing work on prediction of human movements cannot deal with activity changes, leading to a negative impact on the predictive accuracy. Furthermore, the majority of current work on modelling human activity patterns are mainly researched from spatiotemporal perspectives, but the motivation behind is usually being neglected, which is crucial to understanding activity changes. The objective of this study is to develop models and methods to better understand human activity patterns using crowdsourcing and geosocial media data. Thus, in this thesis, a method is first developed to detect activity changes, based on which a Markov chain-based model is developed to predict human movements. Then, semantics is introduced to uncover the motivation associated with the corresponding spatiotemporal patterns, which can infer what people do and discuss in a location at a specific time. Finally, human activity patterns are modelled from both spatiotemporal and semantic perspectives. A 6-year GPS dataset of human movement in Beijing, China was used to evaluate the proposed predictive model. The results show that the predictive model can yield accurate prediction of the movement for those users who have significant activity changes (with R2 improved from 0.295 to 0.762). A whole-year geo-tagged tweets posted within Toronto, Canada was acquired to analyze human activity patterns. A network model was finally created by the proposed approach to represent human activity patterns. The experimental findings demonstrate that most of the individuals (61%) have a regular activity pattern, while only a small number of people (10%) have a different activity pattern from the mass. With the inclusion of semantic information together with the spatiotemporal data as well as detecting the activity changes, such an approach can enhance the capability of human mobility and activity modelling, and thus pave the way for a more mechanistic understanding of how urban systems are being shaped, as well as how their sub-systems/components interact.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".