Quantifying local mobility patterns in urban human mobility data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding fine-scale dynamics of human mobility patterns is pivotal for effective urban planning, public health strategies, and retail analysis. This study introduces a novel mobility measure – the Local Mobility Index (LMI) – combining geometry-based mobility metrics and accessibility measures. The LMI can be considered a measure of ‘relative localness’ by integrating preferences into the assessment of local mobility patterns, offering a novel measure for understanding mobility behavior in urban contexts. The LMI improves upon existing measures as it captures individual choice for local destinations through measuring whether individuals select nearby destinations; accounting for the unequal spatial distribution of urban amenities. Our contribution is mainly methodological, advancing the field by introducing a metric that captures different aspects of mobility compared to conventional mobility metrics. Leveraging mobile-phone-based GPS data, we examine the LMI using 759 individuals across three cities in England. We found that the LMI captures a new and distinct dimension of urban mobility, as evidenced by its weak correlation with established metrics. Therefore, LMI's capacity to highlight previously undetected aspects of mobility behavior, underscores its importance for advancing research and urban planning.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".