Machine-Learning Approaches to Identify Travel Modes Using Smartphone-Assisted Survey and Map Application Programming Interface
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Travel mode choice prediction is essential for transportation planning and travel demand prediction. One of the conventional travel survey methods is collecting data over landline telephones, which lacks efficiency because of financial and time resource needs. In this regard, smartphone-assisted travel surveys can be applied to overcome the mentioned deficiencies. Smartphone-assisted travel surveys allow respondents to record GPS data, travel purpose, and travel mode via an application, simplifying the survey process. With various sensors equipped, the precision of data is ensured. Based on the survey results, varied approaches have been seen to travel mode identification. For this study, a travel survey was conducted in Hangzhou, China, supported by the smartphone application TraceRecord integrated with online mapping services. Several steps were undertaken to recognize different kinds of travel modes. First, preprocessing was adopted to screen out defective logs. With the employment of A-Map Application Programming Interface (API), trajectory segmentation was substantially boosted. Then, separately, features related to velocity, acceleration, and heading were extracted from the survey data. To achieve better accuracy and efficacy, two classification algorithms—support vector machine (SVM) and gradient boosting decision tree (GBDT)—were applied to model the travel mode identification problem. Compared with the SVM, GBDT produced a higher prediction accuracy of 90.16%. Further analysis was implemented based on the results of the GBDT model, and velocity-related features contributed the most to the identification problem. The study explores the possibility of applying travel mode recognition in real-world conditions and discusses further mining of the survey data.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".