ATR-Vis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The worldwide adoption of Twitter turned it into one of the most popular platforms for content analysis as it serves as a gauge of the public’s feeling and opinion on a variety of topics. This is particularly true of political discussions and lawmakers’ actions and initiatives. Yet, one common but unrealistic assumption is that the data of interest for analysis is readily available in a comprehensive and accurate form. Data need to be retrieved, but due to the brevity and noisy nature of Twitter content, it is difficult to formulate user queries that match relevant posts that use different terminology without introducing a considerable volume of unwanted content. This problem is aggravated when the analysis must contemplate multiple and related topics of interest, for which comments are being concurrently posted. This article presents Active Tweet Retrieval Visualization (ATR-Vis), a user-driven visual approach for the retrieval of Twitter content applicable to this scenario. The method proposes a set of active retrieval strategies to involve an analyst in such a way that a major improvement in retrieval coverage and precision is attained with minimal user effort. ATR-Vis enables non-technical users to benefit from the aforementioned active learning strategies by providing visual aids to facilitate the requested supervision. This supports the exploration of the space of potentially relevant tweets, and affords a better understanding of the retrieval results. We evaluate our approach in scenarios in which the task is to retrieve tweets related to multiple parliamentary debates within a specific time span. We collected two Twitter datasets, one associated with debates in the Canadian House of Commons during a particular week in May 2014, and another associated with debates in the Brazilian Federal Senate during a selected week in May 2015. The two use cases illustrate the effectiveness of ATR-Vis for the retrieval of relevant tweets, while quantitative results show that our approach achieves high retrieval quality with a modest amount of supervision. Finally, we evaluated our tool with three external users who perform searching in social media as part of their professional work.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.070 | 0.075 |
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".