E-Cigarette Surveillance With Social Media Data: Social Bots, Emerging Topics, and Trends
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As e-cigarette use rapidly increases in popularity, data from online social systems (Twitter, Instagram, Google Web Search) can be used to capture and describe the social and environmental context in which individuals use, perceive, and are marketed this tobacco product. Social media data may serve as a massive focus group where people organically discuss e-cigarettes unprimed by a researcher, without instrument bias, captured in near real time and at low costs. OBJECTIVE: This study documents e-cigarette-related discussions on Twitter, describing themes of conversations and locations where Twitter users often discuss e-cigarettes, to identify priority areas for e-cigarette education campaigns. Additionally, this study demonstrates the importance of distinguishing between social bots and human users when attempting to understand public health-related behaviors and attitudes. METHODS: E-cigarette-related posts on Twitter (N=6,185,153) were collected from December 24, 2016, to April 21, 2017. Techniques drawn from network science were used to determine discussions of e-cigarettes by describing which hashtags co-occur (concept clusters) in a Twitter network. Posts and metadata were used to describe where geographically e-cigarette-related discussions in the United States occurred. Machine learning models were used to distinguish between Twitter posts reflecting attitudes and behaviors of genuine human users from those of social bots. Odds ratios were computed from 2x2 contingency tables to detect if hashtags varied by source (social bot vs human user) using the Fisher exact test to determine statistical significance. RESULTS: Clusters found in the corpus of hashtags from human users included behaviors (eg, #vaping), vaping identity (eg, #vapelife), and vaping community (eg, #vapenation). Additional clusters included products (eg, #eliquids), dual tobacco use (eg, #hookah), and polysubstance use (eg, #marijuana). Clusters found in the corpus of hashtags from social bots included health (eg, #health), smoking cessation (eg, #quitsmoking), and new products (eg, #ismog). Social bots were significantly more likely to post hashtags that referenced smoking cessation and new products compared to human users. The volume of tweets was highest in the Mid-Atlantic (eg, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, and New York), followed by the West Coast and Southwest (eg, California, Arizona and Nevada). CONCLUSIONS: Social media data may be used to complement and extend the surveillance of health behaviors including tobacco product use. Public health researchers could harness these data and methods to identify new products or devices. Furthermore, findings from this study demonstrate the importance of distinguishing between Twitter posts from social bots and humans when attempting to understand attitudes and behaviors. Social bots may be used to perpetuate the idea that e-cigarettes are helpful in cessation and to promote new products as they enter the marketplace.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".