Incorporating Social Role Theory into Topic Models for Social Media Content Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we explore the idea of social role theory (SRT) and propose a novel regularized topic model which incorporates SRT into the generative process of social media content. We assume that a user can play multiple social roles, and each social role serves to fulfil different duties and is associated with a role-driven distribution over latent topics. In particular, we focus on social roles corresponding to the most common social activities on social networks. Our model is instantiated on microblogs, i.e., Twitter and community question-answering (cQA), i.e., Yahoo!Answers, where social roles on Twitter include “originators” and “propagators”, and roles on cQA are “askers” and “answerers”. Both explicit and implicit interactions between users are taken into account and modeled as regularization factors. To evaluate the performance of our proposed method, we have conducted extensive experiments on two Twitter datasets and two cQA datasets. Furthermore, we also consider multi-role modeling for scientific papers where an author's research expertise area is considered as a social role. A novel application of detecting users' research interests through topical keyword labeling based on the results of our multi-role model has been presented. The evaluation results have shown the feasibility and effectiveness of our model.
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".