Finding Diachronic Like‐Minded Users
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".