Comparing Location Data From Smartphone and Dedicated Global Positioning System Devices: Implications for Epidemiologic Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we compared location data from a dedicated Global Positioning System (GPS) device with location data from smartphones. Data from the Interventions, Equity, and Action in Cities Team (INTERACT) Study, a study examining the impact of urban-form changes on health in 4 Canadian cities (Victoria, Vancouver, Saskatoon, and Montreal), were used. A total of 337 participants contributed data collected for about 6 months from the Ethica Data smartphone application (Ethica Data Inc., Toronto, Ontario, Canada) and the SenseDoc dedicated GPS (MobySens Technologies Inc., Montreal, Quebec, Canada) during the period 2017-2019. Participants recorded an average total of 14,781 Ethica locations (standard deviation, 19,353) and 197,167 SenseDoc locations (standard deviation, 111,868). Dynamic time warping and cross-correlation were used to examine the spatial and temporal similarity of GPS points. Four activity-space measures derived from the smartphone app and the dedicated GPS device were compared. Analysis showed that cross-correlations were above 0.8 at the 125-m resolution for the survey and day levels and increased as cell size increased. At the day or survey level, there were only small differences between the activity-space measures. Based on our findings, we recommend dedicated GPS devices for studies where the exposure and the outcome are both measured at high frequency and when the analysis will not be aggregate. When the exposure and outcome are measured or will be aggregated to the day level, the dedicated GPS device and the smartphone app provide similar results.
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 | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".