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 OpenAlexaff
Jia Xue, Junxiang Chen, Richard J. Gelles

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations41
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueViolence and GenderSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207