It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Understanding human movement patterns at local, national and international scales is critical in a range of fields, including transportation, logistics and epidemiology. Data on human movement is increasingly available, and when combined with statistical models, enables predictions of movement patterns across broad regions. Movement characteristics, however, strongly depend on the scale and type of movement captured for a given study. The models that have so far been proposed for human movement are best suited to specific spatial scales and types of movement. Selecting both the scale of data collection, and the appropriate model for the data remains a key challenge in predicting human movements. We used two different data sources on human movement in Australia, at different spatial scales, to train a range of statistical movement models and evaluate their ability to predict movement patterns for each data type and scale. Whilst the five commonly-used movement models we evaluated varied markedly between datasets in their predictive ability, we show that an ensemble modelling approach that combines the predictions of these models consistently outperformed all individual models against hold-out data.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Royal Melbourne Hospital at The Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Victorian Infectious Diseases Reference Laboratory, Parkville, Australia (GRID:grid.416153.4) (ISNI:0000 0004 0624 1200); University of Melbourne, at The Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Doherty Department, Parkville, Australia (GRID:grid.1008.9) (ISNI:0000 0001 2179 088X)
2 The University of Melbourne, School of Biosciences, Parkville, Australia (GRID:grid.1008.9) (ISNI:0000 0001 2179 088X)
3 Royal Melbourne Hospital at The Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Victorian Infectious Diseases Reference Laboratory, Parkville, Australia (GRID:grid.416153.4) (ISNI:0000 0004 0624 1200); The University of Melbourne, Centre for Epidemiology and Statistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Parkville, Australia (GRID:grid.1008.9) (ISNI:0000 0001 2179 088X); Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Infection Modelling, Parkville, Australia (GRID:grid.1058.c) (ISNI:0000 0000 9442 535X)
4 Monash University, Faculty of Information Technology, Caulfield, Australia (GRID:grid.1002.3) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7857)
5 The University of Melbourne, Melbourne School of Engineering, Parkville, Australia (GRID:grid.1008.9) (ISNI:0000 0001 2179 088X)