The impact of scale on extracting urban mobility patterns using texture analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The development of high-precision location tracking devices and advancements in data collection, storage, transmission technologies, and data mining algorithms have led to the availability of large datasets with high spatiotemporal resolution. These geospatial big data can be used to identify human movement patterns in urban areas. However, identifying human movement patterns may yield different results depending on the scale size used. In this paper, we employed first and second order texture analysis algorithms to identify spatial patterns of human movement for various scale sizes based on taxi trajectory data from Nanjing, China. The results demonstrated that texture analysis can quantify changes in human movement patterns for different scale sizes in an urban area. Furthermore, the results may differ based on the location of the study area. This study contributed both methodologically and empirically. Methodologically, we used texture analysis to examine the impact of different scale sizes on the extraction of aggregated human travel patterns. Empirically, we quantified the effects of different scale sizes on extracting aggregated travel patterns of an urban area. Overall, the findings of this study can have significant implications for urban planning and policy-making, as understanding human movement patterns at different scales can provide valuable insights for optimizing transportation systems and enhancing overall urban mobility.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".