MétaCan
Menu
← all works

Do Altmetrics Work? Twitter and Ten Other Social Web Services

2013· article· en· 913 citations· W2073023209 on OpenAlex· 10.1371/journal.pone.0064841

Why is this work in the frame?

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

Canadian affiliationAn author listed a Canadian institution. This is the only route the usual frame has.

Full frame distilled prediction

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.

Candidate categories
Bibliometrics, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categories
Bibliometrics, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Domain
Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
Study design
Candidate signal: ObservationalConsensus signal: Observational
Genre
Candidate signal: EmpiricalConsensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score
0.097
Threshold uncertainty score
0.998
Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated · codex-gemma-dda1882f352a

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0300.127
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

Machine scores (provisional)

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

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.

Opus teacher head0.631
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread
0.135 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation status
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

Abstract

Altmetric measurements derived from the social web are increasingly advocated and used as early indicators of article impact and usefulness. Nevertheless, there is a lack of systematic scientific evidence that altmetrics are valid proxies of either impact or utility although a few case studies have reported medium correlations between specific altmetrics and citation rates for individual journals or fields. To fill this gap, this study compares 11 altmetrics with Web of Science citations for 76 to 208,739 PubMed articles with at least one altmetric mention in each case and up to 1,891 journals per metric. It also introduces a simple sign test to overcome biases caused by different citation and usage windows. Statistically significant associations were found between higher metric scores and higher citations for articles with positive altmetric scores in all cases with sufficient evidence (Twitter, Facebook wall posts, research highlights, blogs, mainstream media and forums) except perhaps for Google+ posts. Evidence was insufficient for LinkedIn, Pinterest, question and answer sites, and Reddit, and no conclusions should be drawn about articles with zero altmetric scores or the strength of any correlation between altmetrics and citations. Nevertheless, comparisons between citations and metric values for articles published at different times, even within the same year, can remove or reverse this association and so publishers and scientometricians should consider the effect of time when using altmetrics to rank articles. Finally, the coverage of all the altmetrics except for Twitter seems to be low and so it is not clear if they are prevalent enough to be useful in practice.

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.

The record

Venue
PLoS ONE
Topic
scientometrics and bibliometrics research
Field
Decision Sciences
Canadian institutions
Université du Québec à MontréalUniversité de Montréal
Funders
Economic and Social Research CouncilJoint Information Systems CommitteeArts and Humanities Research CouncilNational Science Foundation
Keywords
AltmetricsCitationSocial mediaMetric (unit)BibliometricsMainstreamComputer scienceData scienceWorld Wide WebPolitical scienceEngineering
Has abstract in OpenAlex
yes