2015 3rd International Conference on Future Internet of Things and Cloud 2015
DOI: 10.1109/ficloud.2015.71
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Location Inference of Social Media Posts at Hyper-Local Scale

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
3
3
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Locational information of tweets, for example, can be uncertain because geotags are available for only a very small number of tweets and may deviate from the actual location of the observation (Hahmann et al, 2014). McClanahan and Gokhale (2015), who derived locations from the text in tweets, indicate that the locations they derived from messages in New York City had an average error of 1.72 km. Eilander et al (2016) were the first to give an estimate of the likelihood of areas being flooded by harvesting tweets.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Locational information of tweets, for example, can be uncertain because geotags are available for only a very small number of tweets and may deviate from the actual location of the observation (Hahmann et al, 2014). McClanahan and Gokhale (2015), who derived locations from the text in tweets, indicate that the locations they derived from messages in New York City had an average error of 1.72 km. Eilander et al (2016) were the first to give an estimate of the likelihood of areas being flooded by harvesting tweets.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…If the VGI is a picture, even if the geotagged position is in a wrong place, the image could provide landmarks to place the correct position of the observation, whose location error can be lower than the resolution of the large-scale hydraulic model, thus negligible. If the VGI is a text message from a social platform or it is an image without any recognizable landmark, the geotagged position of the VGI can vary considerably depending on its type (McClanahan and Gokhale 2015;Brouwer et al 2017). The perturbation of the VGI observation given by the positioning error for the i-element of the ensemble can be expressed as a noise error normally distributed with zero mean and variance R VGI loc :…”
Section: Observation Errors In Crowdsourced Datamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Locational information of tweets, for example, can be uncertain because geotags are available for only a very small number of tweets and may deviate from the actual location of the observation (Hahmann et al, 2014). McClanahan and Gokhale (2015), who derived locations from the text in tweets, indicate that the locations they derived from messages in New York City had an average error of 1.72 km. Eilander et al (2016) were the first to give an estimate of the likelihood of areas being flooded by harvesting tweets.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%