MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2625628943 · doi:10.2196/publichealth.5939

How Do You #relax When You’re #stressed? A Content Analysis and Infodemiology Study of Stress-Related Tweets

2017· article· en· W2625628943 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health via Writing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. National Library of MedicineNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institutes of HealthUniversity of Utah
KeywordsContent analysisConjunction (astronomy)Stress (linguistics)Linguistic analysisData sourceContent (measure theory)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Stress is a contributing factor to many major health problems in the United States, such as heart disease, depression, and autoimmune diseases. Relaxation is often recommended in mental health treatment as a frontline strategy to reduce stress, thereby improving health conditions. Twitter is a microblog platform that allows users to post their own personal messages (tweets), including their expressions about feelings and actions related to stress and stress management (eg, relaxing). While Twitter is increasingly used as a source of data for understanding mental health from a population perspective, the specific issue of stress-as manifested on Twitter-has not yet been the focus of any systematic study. OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to understand how people express their feelings of stress and relaxation through Twitter messages. In addition, we aimed at investigating automated natural language processing methods to (1) classify stress versus nonstress and relaxation versus nonrelaxation tweets, and (2) identify first-hand experience-that is, who is the experiencer-in stress and relaxation tweets. METHODS: We first performed a qualitative content analysis of 1326 and 781 tweets containing the keywords "stress" and "relax," respectively. We then investigated the use of machine learning algorithms-in particular naive Bayes and support vector machines-to automatically classify tweets as stress versus nonstress and relaxation versus nonrelaxation. Finally, we applied these classifiers to sample datasets drawn from 4 cities in the United States (Los Angeles, New York, San Diego, and San Francisco) obtained from Twitter's streaming application programming interface, with the goal of evaluating the extent of any correlation between our automatic classification of tweets and results from public stress surveys. RESULTS: Content analysis showed that the most frequent topic of stress tweets was education, followed by work and social relationships. The most frequent topic of relaxation tweets was rest & vacation, followed by nature and water. When we applied the classifiers to the cities dataset, the proportion of stress tweets in New York and San Diego was substantially higher than that in Los Angeles and San Francisco. In addition, we found that characteristic expressions of stress and relaxation varied for each city based on its geolocation. CONCLUSIONS: This content analysis and infodemiology study revealed that Twitter, when used in conjunction with natural language processing techniques, is a useful data source for understanding stress and stress management strategies, and can potentially supplement infrequently collected survey-based stress data.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Public Health and SurveillanceSame topicMental Health via WritingFrench-language works237,207