MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

HOW AIR QUALITY AFFECTS HUMAN MOBILITY PATTERNS: AN EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS

2023· article· en· W4389704282 on OpenAlexaff
S. Xu, Yujin Zhao, Songnian Li

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œinternational archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences/International archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersBeijing Association for Science and TechnologyChina Scholarship CouncilMinistry of Natural Resources of the People's Republic of China
KeywordsBeijingAir quality indexQuality (philosophy)Environmental scienceExploratory factor analysisVolume (thermodynamics)Transport engineeringGeographyChinaStatisticsMeteorologyMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Air quality acts as an important factor that human may consider as they make decisions on when and where they would go. In order to access how much the air quality affects human mobility patterns, the air quality was measured using air quality index (AQI) and human mobility patterns were measured by travel volume and travel distance of shared bikes. Their correlation that presents on weekdays and weekends as well as in different administrative districts were investigated using Spearman correlation analysis method. A case study was conducted in Beijing, China using bike sharing data and air quality data ranging from May 10 to 16, 2017. The results show that travel distance is more sensitive to air quality on weekdays such as Changping District (−0.20), Haidian District (−0.13), Shunyi District (−0.12). The travel volume on weekdays is less sensitive to air quality due to commuting. The travel volume has a negative relationship with AQI on weekends. Fengtai District, Huairou District, Pinggu District are more susceptible to severe air quality, leading to a reduction in bike traveling distance. This work sheds light on understanding human-environment coupling mechanism and promoting urban sustainable development.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œinternational archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences/International archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences→Same topicUrban Transport and Accessibility→French-language works237,207→