To help researchers conduct a systematic review or meta-analysis as efficiently and transparently as possible, we designed a tool to accelerate the step of screening titles and abstracts. For many tasks—including but not limited to systematic reviews and meta-analyses—the scientific literature needs to be checked systematically. Scholars and practitioners currently screen thousands of studies by hand to determine which studies to include in their review or meta-analysis. This is error prone and inefficient because of extremely imbalanced data: only a fraction of the screened studies is relevant. The future of systematic reviewing will be an interaction with machine learning algorithms to deal with the enormous increase of available text. We therefore developed an open source machine learning-aided pipeline applying active learning: ASReview. We demonstrate by means of simulation studies that active learning can yield far more efficient reviewing than manual reviewing while providing high quality. Furthermore, we describe the options of the free and open source research software and present the results from user experience tests. We invite the community to contribute to open source projects such as our own that provide measurable and reproducible improvements over current practice.

Cyclists may have incorrect expectations of the behaviour of automated vehicles in interactions with them, which could bring extra risks in traffic. This study investigated whether expectations and behavioural intentions of cyclists when interacting with automated cars differed from those with manually driven cars. A photo experiment was conducted with 35 participants who judged bicycle-car interactions from the perspective of the cyclist. Thirty photos were presented. An experimental design was used with between-subjects factor instruction (two levels: positive, neutral), and two within-subjects factors: car type (three levels: roof name plate, stickerthese two external features indicated automated cars; and traditional car), and series (two levels: first, second). Participants were asked how sure they were to be noticed by the car shown in the photos, whether the car would stop, and how they would behave themselves. A subset of nine participants was equipped with an eye-tracker. Findings generally point to cautious dispositions towards automated cars: participants were not more confident to be noticed when interacting with both types of automated cars than with manually driven cars. Participants were more confident that automated cars would stop for them during the second series and looked significantly longer at automated cars during the first.

No abstract

BackgroundConducting a systematic review requires great screening effort. Various tools have been proposed to speed up the process of screening thousands of titles and abstracts by engaging in active learning. In such tools, the reviewer interacts with machine learning software to identify relevant publications as early as possible. To gain a comprehensive understanding of active learning models for reducing workload in systematic reviews, the current study provides a methodical overview of such models. Active learning models were evaluated across four different classification techniques (naive Bayes, logistic regression, support vector machines, and random forest) and two different feature extraction strategies (TF-IDF and doc2vec). Moreover, models were evaluated across six systematic review datasets from various research areas to assess generalizability of active learning models across different research contexts. MethodsPerformance of the models were assessed by conducting simulations on six systematic review datasets. We defined desirable model performance as maximizing recall while minimizing the number of publications needed to screen. Model performance was evaluated by recall curves, WSS@95, RRF@10, and ATD. ResultsWithin all datasets, the model performance exceeded screening at random order to a great degree.The models reduced the number of publications needed to screen by 91.7% to 63.9%. ConclusionsActive learning models for screening prioritization show great potential in reducing the workload in systematic reviews. Overall, the Naive Bayes + TF-IDF model performed the best.

In this paper we apply a gravity framework to user-generated data of a large online housing market platform. We show that gravity describes the patterns of inflow and outflow of hits (mouse clicks, etc.) from one municipality to another, where the municipality of the user defines the origin and the municipality of the property that is viewed defines the destination. By distinguishing serious searchers from recreational searchers we demonstrate that the gravity framework describes geographic search patterns of both types of users. The results indicate that recreational search is centered more around the user’s location than serious search. However, this finding is driven entirely by differences in border effects as there is no difference in the distance effect. By demonstrating that geographic search patterns of both serious and recreational searchers are explained by their physical locations, we present clear evidence that physical location is an important determinant of economic behavior in the virtual realm too.