|
|
|
|
|
by PaulHoule
1621 days ago
|
|
It reminds me of the old PRISM system described here: https://www.amazon.com/Clustering-America-Michael-J-Weiss/dp... which was not an unsupervised clustering but rather a grid subdivision into communities over a few variables. Then they gave catchy names like "Shotguns and Pickups" and "Blue Blood Estates" to the boxes. The current study divided first into three categories of growing, stable and shrinking and then split the growing communities into high, middle and low income. That kind of division is more likely to be meaningful than an unsupervised clustering (e.g. I can explain the structure in a sentence so of course it is meaningful.) |
|
I was running reasonably complex models of household types around stores to build marketing campaigns for consumer goods. It was very effective.
I met Prof. Webber a couple of times, and he explained that the genesis for these systems was for siting public transport stations in the right places to optimise usage patterns and ensuring they had sufficient usage to make the investment worthwhile, well, IIRC, that was 30 years ago…
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_(geodemography) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acorn_(demographics) [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Webber_(demographer)