MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2783913268 · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v11i1.14975

Estimating the Effect Of Exercising On Users’ Online Behavior

2017· article· en· W2783913268 on OpenAlexaff
Seyed Mirlohi Falavarjani, Hawre Hosseini, Zeinab Noorian, Ebrahim Bagheri

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media and Politics
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMatching (statistics)Social network (sociolinguistics)Set (abstract data type)Internet privacyOrder (exchange)World Wide WebOnline and offlineSocial mediaStatisticsMathematicsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to estimate the influence of offline activity on users’ online behavior, relying on a matching method to reduce the effect of confounding variables. We analyze activities of 850 users who are active on both Twitter and Foursquare social networks. Users’ offline activity is extracted from Foursquare posts and users’ online behavior is extracted from Twitter posts. Users’ interests, representing their online behavior, are extracted with regards to a set of topics in several subsequent time intervals. The shift of users’ interests across different time intervals is taken as a measure of user behavior change on the social network. On the other hand, we employ user check-ins at a gym or fitness center as a sign of exercise and consider it to be an offline activity. In order to find the effect of exercise on online behavior, we identify users who did not go to the gym for at least two months but did so at least nine times in the next three months. We show that shift in interest reduces significantly for users after they start exercising, which implies that the offline activity of exercising can influence how users’ interests are shaped and change on the social network over time.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.368
Threshold uncertainty score0.699

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.300 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social MediaSame topicSocial Media and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207