Developing Skeletal Activity Scheduler using Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding human mobility patterns is crucial for sustainable urban planning. This study presents a novel approach for predicting daily activity sequences using machine learning techniques, specifically Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks and Explainable Boosting Machines (EBM). Utilizing data from the 2022 Halifax Travel Activity (HaliTRAC) Survey, we train these models to predict sequences of activities based on individual and household characteristics, aiming to balance predictive performance with interpretability. The LSTM model effectively captures complex temporal dependencies, while EBM provides clear insights into the significance of individual features, addressing the "black box" nature of Machine Learning models. By simplifying activity sequences into five primary activity types, the refined LSTM and EBM models achieve accuracies of 70.25% and 73.73%, respectively. Key findings highlight employment status, age, and education level as major determinants of activity patterns, with household characteristics like size playing a secondary role. This research demonstrates the potential of utilizing advanced machine learning techniques in mobility analysis, offering both accurate predictions and actionable insights. The proposed framework provides a foundation for developing transparent and reliable tools to inform transportation policies and urban development strategies.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".