MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2608294675 · doi:10.1111/coin.12117

Finding Diachronic Like‐Minded Users

2017· article· en· W2608294675 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueComputational Intelligence · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicComplex Network Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLatent Dirichlet allocationComputer scienceTimestampFriendshipTopic modelSocial mediaSimilarity (geometry)Context (archaeology)Data scienceInterpersonal tiesInformation retrievalWorld Wide WebArtificial intelligenceSociologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

User communities in social networks are usually identified by considering explicit structural social connections between users. While such communities can reveal important information about their members such as family or friendship ties and geographical proximity, just to name a few, they do not necessarily succeed at pulling like‐minded users that share the same interests together. Therefore, researchers have explored the topical similarity of social content to build like‐minded communities of users. In this article, following the topic‐based approaches, we are interested in identifying communities of users that share similar topical interests with similar temporal behavior. More specifically, we tackle the problem of identifying temporal (diachronic) topic‐based communities, i.e., communities of users who have a similar temporal inclination toward emerging topics. To do so, we utilize multivariate time series analysis to model the contributions of each user toward emerging topics. Further, our modeling is completely agnostic to the underlying topic detection method. We extract topics of interest by employing seminal topic detection methods; one graph‐based and two latent Dirichlet allocation‐based methods. Through our experiments on Twitter data, we demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed temporal topic‐based community detection method in the context of news recommendation, user prediction, and document timestamp prediction applications, compared with the nontemporal as well as the state‐of‐the‐art temporal approaches.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.929
Threshold uncertainty score0.928

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.303 · 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