Homophily and Latent Attribute Inference: Inferring Latent Attributes of Twitter Users from Neighbors
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we extend existing work on latent attribute inference by leveraging the principle of homophily: we evaluate the inference accuracy gained by augmenting the user features with features derived from the Twitter profiles and postings of her friends. We consider three attributes which have varying degrees of assortativity: gender, age, and political affiliation. Our approach yields a significant and robust increase in accuracy for both age and political affiliation, indicating that our approach boosts performance for attributes with moderate to high assortativity. Furthermore, different neighborhood subsets yielded optimal performance for different attributes, suggesting that different subsamples of the user's neighborhood characterize different aspects of the user herself. Finally, inferences using only the features of a user's neighbors outperformed those based on the user's features alone. This suggests that the neighborhood context alone carries substantial information about the user.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it