MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945139191 · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2019.1620333

Use of Twitter in the Cameroon Anglophone crisis

2019· article· en· W2945139191 on OpenAlexaff
Julius T. Nganji, Lynn Cockburn

Bibliographic record

VenueBehaviour and Information Technology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media and Politics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial mediaNarrativeContext (archaeology)DiasporaGovernment (linguistics)DepictionPublic relationsCrisis communicationPolitical scienceSociologyMedia studiesGender studiesHistoryLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A growing body of literature shows that social media plays a key role during crises and conflicts. In addition to traditional media, social media are used to mobilise people for a common cause and to communicate vital information. Very little is known about social media use during crises in the sub-Saharan African context. This article presents how Twitter is being used in the ongoing Cameroon Anglophone Crisis by several groups including the government, Anglophone activists, media organisations, and everyday citizens. Using critical theoretical perspectives to examine tweets from 1 September 2016 to 31 December 2018, this article identifies key themes. These include: placement of the crisis in a contested, historical context; debates about naming the crisis; key concepts; depiction of several forms of violence; and potential options for resolution. Social media is being used by the government, Anglophone activists, and non-affiliated people to sway public opinions on the crisis and solicit the attention of local, Diaspora, and broader international communities. Social media use has loosened the grip of governmental control of media messaging and expanded the public narratives available in Cameroon, yet at the time of the writing, this does not appear to have lessened the impact of the crisis.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations37
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehaviour and Information TechnologySame topicSocial Media and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207