Predicting walking-to-work using street-level imagery and deep learning in seven Canadian cities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New 'big data' streams such as street-level imagery are offering unprecedented possibilities for developing health-relevant data on the urban environment. Urban environmental features derived from street-level imagery have been used to assess pedestrian-friendly neighbourhood design and to predict active commuting, but few such studies have been conducted in Canada. Using 1.15 million Google Street View (GSV) images in seven Canadian cities, we applied image segmentation and object detection computer vision methods to extract data on persons, bicycles, buildings, sidewalks, open sky (without trees or buildings), and vegetation at postal codes. The associations between urban features and walk-to-work rates obtained from the Canadian Census were assessed. We also assessed how GSV-derived urban features perform in predicting walk-to-work rates relative to more widely used walkability measures. Results showed that features derived from street-level images are better able to predict the percent of people walking to work as their primary mode of transportation compared to data derived from traditional walkability metrics. Given the increasing coverage of street-level imagery around the world, there is considerable potential for machine learning and computer vision to help researchers study patterns of active transportation and other health-related behaviours and exposures.
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 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".