2016 8th International Conference on Information Technology and Electrical Engineering (ICITEE) 2016
DOI: 10.1109/iciteed.2016.7863251
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Real-time traffic classification with Twitter data mining

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
28
0
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
4
4

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(29 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
28
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Tweets collected using a spatial extent are geotagged whereas tweets collected by keywords or by following some specific user accounts are typically not geotagged. Some researchers [8], [22] used multiple strategies to collect traffic related tweets. For example, Wang and colleagues [8] collected tweets from official accounts, using pre-defined road names and using circular search areas along the road network to collect geotagged tweets near roads.…”
Section: State-of-the-artmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Tweets collected using a spatial extent are geotagged whereas tweets collected by keywords or by following some specific user accounts are typically not geotagged. Some researchers [8], [22] used multiple strategies to collect traffic related tweets. For example, Wang and colleagues [8] collected tweets from official accounts, using pre-defined road names and using circular search areas along the road network to collect geotagged tweets near roads.…”
Section: State-of-the-artmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…D'Andrea and others used inverse document frequency (IDF) as features [11]. Similarly, other researchers used a single word tokens (unigram) and multiple word tokens (n-gram) and their associated term frequencies (TF) as feature vectors [7], [8], [12], [14], [15], [22], [24]. Gu and colleagues used only a selected number of unigrams pertaining to traffic incidents in the US [24].…”
Section: State-of-the-artmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Kurniawan et al [30] collected data consisting of 110,449 tweets for seven days from official traffic accounts from the Indonesian province Yogyakarta. They used three algorithms for machine-learning, namely Naïve Bayes (NB), a Support Vector Machine (SVM), and a Decision Tree (DT).…”
Section: Sentiment Analysis In Trafficmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Tapan [7] purposed technique of EFWS (Effective Word Score) of tweets to improve sentiment analysis along with machine learning algorithm. Authors [9]- [11] [16] compares classification performances of machine learning algorithms namely SVM, Decision tree and naïve bayes and concluded that SVM approach works best. Yun [17] used ensemble sentiment classification based on majority vote principle of ensemble classification and results have shown that ensemble approach improves the accuracy in twitter sentiment classification.…”
Section: Literature Surveymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In order to address the above problems and to get useful and meaningful information from the vast amounts of tweets, tweet data needs to be preprocessed To classify trending topics into particular category like: arts, books, health, music, politics, religion, science, sports common techniques used are Bag-of-Words technique, social network information, and network-based classification. Various machine learning algorithms [9] like Naive Bayes, SVM, random forest and Maximum Entropy are also used for categorization of tweets. This paper mainly focuses on classification of tweets into particular category by improving the performance metrics of various machine learning algorithms and a comparison between machine learning algorithms and liblinear classifier is also performed.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%