Optimizing Search API Queries for Twitter Topic Classifiers Using a Maximum Set Coverage Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Twitter has grown to become an important platform to access immediate information about major events and dynamic topics. As one example, recent work has shown that classifiers trained to detect topical content on Twitter can generalize well beyond the training data. Since access to Twitter data is hidden behind a limited search API, it is impossible (for most users) to apply these classifiers directly to the Twitter unfiltered data streams ("firehose"). Rather, applications must first decide what content to retrieve through the search API before filtering that content with topical classifiers. Thus, it is critically important to query the Twitter API relative to the intended topical classifier in a way that minimizes the amount of negatively classified data retrieved. In this paper, we propose a sequence of query optimization methods that generalize notions of the maximum coverage problem to find the subset of query terms within the API limits that cover most of the topically relevant tweets without sacrificing precision. We evaluate the proposed methods on a large dataset of Twitter data collected during 2013 and 2014 labeled using manually curated hashtags for eight topics. Among many insights, our analysis shows that the best of the proposed methods can significantly outperform the firehose on precision and F1-score while achieving high recall within strict API limitations.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".