4.5 Review

Investigating transportation research based on social media analysis: a systematic mapping review

期刊

SCIENTOMETRICS
卷 126, 期 8, 页码 6383-6421

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-021-04046-2

关键词

Intelligent transportation system; Traffic; Opinion mining; Text mining; Social media analysis; Systematic mapping review; Sentiment analysis

资金

  1. University of Malaya [RK004-2017]
  2. Sunway University [CR-UM-SST-DCIS-2018-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper summarizes the research on social media analysis in the field of transportation over the past decade, revealing research trends by countries, platform usage trends, and the most commonly used analytical methods and data. Finally, challenges and directions for future research are proposed.
Social media is a pool of users' thoughts, opinions, surrounding environment, situation and others. This pool can be used as a real-time and feedback data source for many domains such as transportation. It can be used to get instant feedback from commuters; their opinions toward the transportation network and their complaints, in addition to the traffic situation, road conditions, events detection and many others. The problem is in how to utilize social media data to achieve one or more of these targets. A systematic review was conducted in the field of transportation-related research based on social media analysis (TRR-SMA) from the years between 2008 and 2018; 74 papers were identified from an initial set of 703 papers extracted from 4 digital libraries. This review will structure the field and give an overview based on the following grounds: activity, keywords, approaches, social media data and platforms and focus of the researches. It will show the trend in the research subjects by countries, in addition to the activity trends, platforms usage trend and others. Further analysis of the most employed approach (Lexicons) and data (text) will be also shown. Finally, challenges and future works are drawn and proposed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据