Mining Twitter data for influenza detection and surveillance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Twitter --- a social media platform --- has gained phenomenal popularity among researchers who have explored its massive volumes of data to offer meaningful insights into many aspects of modern life. Twitter has also drawn great interest from public health community to answer many health-related questions regarding the detection and spread of certain diseases. However, despite the growing popularity of Twitter as an influenza detection source among researchers, healthcare officials do not seem to be as intrigued by the opportunities that social media offers for detecting and monitoring diseases. In this paper, we demonstrate that 1) Twitter messages (tweets) can be reliably classified based on influenza related keywords; 2) the spread of influenza can be predicted with high accuracy; and, 3) there is a way to monitor the spread of influenza in selected cities in real-time. We propose an approach to efficiently mine and extract data from Twitter streams, reliably classify tweets based on their sentiment, and visualize data via a real-time interactive map. Our study benefits not only aspiring researchers who are interested in conducting a study involving the analysis of Twitter data but also health sectors officials who are encouraged to incorporate the analysis of vast information from social media data sources, in particular, Twitter.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".