The Effect of Mobile Platforms on Twitter Content Generation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increased popularity of feature-rich mobile devices in recent years has enabled widespread consumption and production of social media content via mobile devices. Because mobile devices and mobile applications change context within which an individual generates and consumes microblog content, we might expect microblogging behavior to differ depending on whether the user is using a mobile device. To our knowledge, little has been established about what, if any, effects such mobile interfaces have on microblogging. In this paper, we investigate this question within the context of Twitter, among the most popular microblogging platforms. This work makes three specific contributions. First, we quantify the ways in which user profiles are effected by the mobile context: (1) the extent to which users tend to be either fully non-mobile or mobile and (2) the relative activity of the mobile Twitter community. Second, we assess the differences in content between mobile and non-mobile tweets (posts to the Twitter platform). Our results show that mobile platforms produce very different patterns of Twitter usage. As part of our analysis, we propose and apply a classification system for tweets. We consider this to be the third contribution of this work. While other classification systems have been proposed, ours is the first to permit the independent encoding of a tweet’s form, content, and intended audience. In this paper we apply this system to show how tweets differ between mobile and non-mobile contexts. However, because of its flexibility and breadth, the schema may be useful to researchers studying Twitter content in other contexts as well.
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 | 0.001 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".