Statistical Analysis of Classification Algorithms for Predicting Socioeconomics Status of Twitter Users
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to compare a series of well-known statistical machine learning techniques that classify online social network (OSN) Twitter users based on their socioeconomic status (upper/middle/lower).These approaches are of difference owing to their assumptions, strengths, and weaknesses.In the experiments, five ( 5) classification algorithms are employed for the classification task.Logistic Regression, Support Vector Machine (SVM), Naïve Bayes (NB), k-Nearest Neighbors, and Decision Tree are applied on high-dimensional data set extracted from the users' platform-based and profile-based behavior on Twitter.These algorithms are theoretically investigated and experimentally evaluated in terms of four (4) performance measures: accuracy, precision, recall, and AUC.Then, ensemble methods i.e.Bagging and Boosting are employed to improve the performance of the aforementioned classifiers.Multivariate analysis of variance is employed to examine if performance measures of these algorithms are significantly different.And univariate analysis of variance is used to analyze the differences of our classification methods for each performance measure.The analyses indicate a significant difference among these algorithms; both SVM and NB achieve good performance on our high-dimensional OSN data set.
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 | 0.008 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".