Automated Delineation of Subgroups in Web Video: A Medical Activism Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Web 2.0 tools in general, and Web video in particular, provide new ways for activists to express their viewpoints to a broad audience. In this paper we deployed tools that have been used to find subgroups automatically in social networks and applied them to the problem of distinguishing between two sides of a controversial issue based on patterns of online interaction. We explored the problem of distinguishing between anti- and pro-vaccination activists based on a social network of videos and associated comments posted on YouTube. Videos for the analysis were selected by submitting the term “vaccination” to a search on YouTube. A content analysis of the selected videos was then performed (Keelan et al, 2007) to classify videos as pro- or anti-vaccination. Then, a modified version of the SCAN method (Chin and Chignell, 2008) for identifying cohesive subgroups in social networks was applied to the social network inferred from the discussions about the videos. Results showed that a cohesive subgroup of anti-vaccination people existed in discussions around anti-vaccination videos, whereas discussions around pro-vaccination videos included both anti-vaccination and pro-vaccination people. Implications of the method and results for more general delineation of types of medical activism and the opposing camps within those camps are discussed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".