Bibliographic record
Abstract
We describe the dimensions along which Facebook users tend to express themselves via status updates using the semi-automated text analysis approach, the Meaning Extraction Method (MEM). First, we examined dimensions of self-expression in all status updates from a sample of four million Facebook users from four English-speaking countries (the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia) in order to examine how these countries vary in their self-expressions. All four countries showed a basic three-component structure, indicating that the medium is a stronger influence than country characteristics or demographics on how people use Facebook status updates. In each country, people vary in terms of the extent to which they use Informal Speech, share Positive Events, and discuss School in their Facebook status updates. Together, these factors tell us how users differ in their self-expression, and thus illustrate meaningful use cases for the product: Talking about what’s going on tends to be positive, and people vary in terms of the extent to which their status updates are short, slangy emotional expressions and topics regarding school. The specific words that define these factors showed subtle differences across countries: The use of profanity indicates fewer school words (but only in Australia), whereas the UK shows greater use of slang terms (rather than profanity) when speaking informally. The MEM also identified English-language dialects as a meaningful dimension along which the countries varied. In sum, beyond simply indicating topicality of posts, this study provides insight into how status updates are used for self-expression. We discuss several theoretical frameworks that could produce these results, and more broadly discuss the generation of theoretical frameworks from wholly empirical data (such as naturalistic Internet speech) using the MEM.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".