Estimating mobility of tourists. New Twitter-based procedure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Twitter has been actively researched as a human mobility proxy. Tweets can contain two classes of geographical metadata: the location from which a tweet was published, and the place where the tweet is estimated to have been published. Nevertheless, Twitter also presents tweets without any geographical metadata when querying for tweets on a specific location. This study presents a methodology which includes an algorithm for estimating the geographical coordinates to tweets for which Twitter doesn't assign any. Our objective is to determine the origin and the route that a tourist followed, even if Twitter doesn't return geographically identified data. This is carried out through geographical searches of tweets inside a defined area. Once a tweet is found inside an area, but its metadata contains no explicit geographical coordinates, its coordinates are estimated by iteratively performing geographical searches, with a decreasing geographical searching radius. This algorithm was tested in two touristic villages of Madrid (Spain) and a major city in Canada. A set of tweets without geographical coordinates in these areas were found and processed. The coordinates of a subset of them were successfully estimated.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".