MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2172675111 · doi:10.17975/sfj-2015-007

Statistical Analysis of Hockey-Tweeting Twitter Users’ Habits and Interactions

2015· article· en· W2172675111 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueSTEM Fellowship Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSports, Gender, and Society
Canadian institutionsEarl Haig Secondary School
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial mediaPython (programming language)Big dataComputer scienceWorld Wide WebAdvertisingData miningBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Big data analysis techniques can make significant impacts on social trend information. Hockey is a popular sport internationally, and online communities have formed on social media websites such as Twitter. This paper aims to investigate information available on Twitter about users connected to hockey. It also aims to explain Twitter data collection processes and the significance of social media information collection. Using a set of routines developed by the authors in python 3.3 and with the Twitter 1.16 API, 25,189 messages (“tweets”) matching hockey keywords were collected. From it, further information about users’ tweeting habits and the overall communities’ habits were found. The highest percentages of frequent tweeting about hockey was during large sports events not directly related to hockey.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.608
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.260 · 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