The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Geographical topic discovery and comparison
Abstract
This paper studies the problem of discovering and comparing geographical topics from GPS-associated documents. GPS-associated documents become popular with the pervasiveness of location-acquisition technologies. For example, in Flickr, the geo-tagged photos are associated with tags and GPS locations. In Twitter, the locations of the tweets can be identified by the GPS locations from smart phones. Many interesting concepts, including cultures, scenes, and product sales, correspond to specialized geographical distributions. In this paper, we are interested in two questions: (1) how to discover different topics of interests that are coherent in geographical regions? (2) how to compare several topics across different geographical locations? To answer these questions, this paper proposes and compares three ways of modeling geographical topics: location-driven model, text-driven model, and a novel joint model called LGTA (Latent Geographical Topic Analysis) that combines location and text. To make a fair comparison, we collect several representative datasets from Flickr website including Landscape, Activity, Manhattan, National park, Festival, Car, and Food. The results show that the first two methods work in some datasets but fail in others. LGTA works well in all these datasets at not only finding regions of interests but also providing effective comparisons of the topics across different locations. The results confirm our hypothesis that the geographical distributions can help modeling topics, while topics provide important cues to group different geographical regions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Urban Computing: Concepts, Methodologies, and Applications
Zheng, Y., Capra, L., Wolfson, O., & Yang, H. (2014) · ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology · doi:10.1145/2629592 · Cited by 1,507
Is the Sample Good Enough? Comparing Data from Twitter's Streaming API with Twitter's Firehose
Morstatter, F., Pfeffer, J., Liu, H., & Carley, K. (2021) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v7i1.14401 · Cited by 863
Learning geographical preferences for point-of-interest recommendation
Liu, B., Fu, Y., Yao, Z., & Xiong, H. (2013) · Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining · doi:10.1145/2487575.2487673 · Cited by 437
Discovering geographical topics in the twitter stream
Hong, L., Ahmed, A., Gurumurthy, S., Smola, A. J., & Tsioutsiouliklis, K. (2012) · Proceedings of the 21st international conference on World Wide Web · doi:10.1145/2187836.2187940 · Cited by 377
Text-Based Twitter User Geolocation Prediction
Han, B., Cook, P., & Baldwin, T. (2014) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research · doi:10.1613/jair.4200 · Cited by 324
Metadata
- Authors
- Yin, Z., Cao, L., Han, J., Zhai, C., & Huang, T.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 20th international conference on World wide web
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2011-03-28
- Pages
- 247-256
- OpenAlex
- W2127860643
- Cited by
- 315
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 27.13
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Geographical topic discovery and comparison. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/1963405.1963443
- The paper
- Yin, Z., Cao, L., Han, J., Zhai, C., & Huang, T. (2011). Geographical topic discovery and comparison. Proceedings of the 20th international conference on World wide web. https://doi.org/10.1145/1963405.1963443
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.