Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compares six metrics commonly used to identify influential players in two of Canada’s largest political Twitter communities based on the users, and ranking order of users, identified by each metric. All tweets containing the hashtag #CPC, representing the Conservative Party of Canada (government), and #NDP, representing the New Democratic Party of Canada (official opposition), were collected over a 2-week period in March 2013 and a follower network graph was created. Social network analysis and content analysis were employed to identify influentials. Kendall’s τ was the primary quantitative measure for comparison. Categorization of Twitter profiles of users found within the top 20 most influential lists, according to each metric of influence, made up the qualitative portion of analysis. The authors find that measures of centrality—indegree and eigenvector centrality—identify the traditional political elite (media outlets, journalists, politicians) as influential, whereas measures considering the quality of messages and interactions provide a different group of influencers, including political commentators and bloggers. Finally, the authors investigate the possibility of using the local clustering coefficient of nodes to identify those who are both aware of the traditional elite and embedded in tightly knit communities, similar to the “opinion leader,” described in the Two-Step Flow Hypothesis.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".