MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974770283 · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2013.848917

Twitter: a content analysis of personal information

2013· article· en· W1974770283 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInformation Communication & Society · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media and Politics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsSocial mediaPhoneSociologyMedia studiesPersonally identifiable informationOrder (exchange)PublicsInternet privacyLibrary sciencePsychologyWorld Wide WebPolitical scienceComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AbstractSocial media provide many opportunities to connect people, but the kinds of personally identifiable information that people share through social media is understudied. This paper presents findings from a content analysis in which we coded the amount and kinds of personally identifiable information of public Twitter messages. Overwhelmingly, public Twitter messages do not include identifiable information such as phone numbers, email, and home addresses. Using Goffman's [(1963). Behaviors in public places: Notes on the social organization of gatherings. New York, NY: Free Press] concepts of public order and civil inattention, we also coded for whether people articulate the kinds of information that are communicated with others in public space, including locational, temporal, and activity-related information. Our findings suggest that people do share similar kinds of personal information on Twitter that they do in others kinds of physical public spaces, suggesting that people may also be mapping old practices for public social interaction onto networked publics.Keywords: social mediapublic orderprivacycivil inattentionTwitterlocation AcknowledgementsSpecial thanks go to Cornell's New Media and Society group for comments on an earlier draft of the paper and to the research assistants who worked on this project: Adam Agata, Ordessia Charron, Madalyn Darnell, Betsy Distelberger, Kim McErlean, Claudia Mei, Elizabeth Newbury, Adi Potashnic, and Deborah Tan.FundingThis work was supported by the USDA/NIFA [ID 0223492].Notes on ContributorsLee Humphreys, PhD is an assistant professor of Communication at Cornell University. [email: lmh13@cornell.edu]Phillipa Gill, PhD is an assistant professor of Computer Science at Stony Brook University. [email: Phillipa.Gill@stonybrook.edu]Balachander Krishnamurthy, PhD is a lead member of technical staff, research at AT&T Labs – Research. [email: bala@research.att.com]Notes1. User ID is different from names or usernames. We specifically wanted to not collect the names to maintain some privacy of the tweets.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.312
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it