Using Facebook to Recruit Urban Participants for Smartphone-Based Travel Surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social media has become an integral part of everyday life for many individuals, serving as a platform to express opinions, share memories and lifestyles, follow news, and adapt to social trends and norms. The wealth of user information and analytics on these platforms has facilitated the development and sale of tailored products and services, benefiting advertisers and researchers seeking survey participants. Social media advertising has demonstrated its effectiveness in reaching hard-to-reach populations. However, transport researchers have yet to capitalise on this potential fully. This paper presents our experience using social media to recruit participants for two smartphone travel surveys conducted in Australia. We demonstrate that social media recruitment and smartphone-based travel surveys are highly effective, adaptable, and can be rapidly deployed in response to research opportunities, such as during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic when traditional methods may be less suitable. This approach also holds great potential for travel surveys targeting the general population. This paper shares several lessons from this experiment, including our administrative approach and detailed technical instructions to utilise open-source software tools for conducting smartphone travel surveys like ours. This approach significantly reduces study costs compared to most commercial solutions.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.005 |
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".