MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911936887 · doi:10.1089/vio.2017.0066

Using Data Mining Techniques to Examine Domestic Violence Topics on Twitter

2019· article· en· W2911936887 on OpenAlex
Jia Xue, Junxiang Chen, Richard J. Gelles

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueViolence and Gender · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLatent Dirichlet allocationDomestic violenceTopic modelThematic analysisKey (lock)Social mediaThematic mapData scienceComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceWorld Wide WebComputer securityPoison controlSuicide preventionGeographySociologyCartographyQualitative researchSocial scienceMedicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to discover hidden topics and thematic structures among domestic violence-related texts on Twitter. We collected 322,863 messages using the key term “domestic violence.” We used unsupervised machine-learning methodology Latent dirichlet allocation, and found that the most common 20 pairs of words were “violence awareness,” “greg hardy,” “awareness month,” “victims domestic,” “stop domestic,” and “ronda rousey.” We identified 20 topics that appear most frequently, such as Topic 19 with frequent words “greg hardy,” “photos greg,” “dallas cowboys,” “charges expunged,” “hardy girlfriend,” and also assigned themes (e.g., “Greg Hardy domestic violence case”) for the topics. This study demonstrates the feasibility of using topic-modeling methods for mining gender-based violence data on Twitter.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.793
Threshold uncertainty score0.570

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.253 · 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