MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3003585523 · doi:10.2196/16833

Follow-Up Investigation on the Promotional Practices of Electric Scooter Companies: Content Analysis of Posts on Instagram and Twitter

2020· article· en· W3003585523 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Allison Dormanesh, Anuja Majmundar, Jon-Patrick Allem

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopularityMetropolitan areaSocial mediaAdvertisingContent analysisBusinessSociologyPolitical scienceComputer scienceGeographyWorld Wide WebLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Electric scooters (e-scooters) have become a popular mode of transportation in both the United States and Europe. In the wake of this popularity, e-scooters have changed the commuting experience in many metropolitan areas. Although e-scooters offer an efficient and economical way to travel short distances in traffic-congested areas, recent studies have raised concerns over their safety. Bird and Tier Mobility are 2 popular e-scooter companies in the United States and Europe, respectively. Both companies maintain active social media accounts with hundreds of posts and tens of thousands of followers. Recent studies have shown that consumer behavior may be influenced by the content posted to popular social media platforms, such as Instagram and Twitter. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the official Instagram and Twitter accounts of Bird and Tier Mobility to determine whether these companies promote and demonstrate the use of safety gear in their posts to their consumers. METHODS: Posts to Bird's (n=287) and Tier Mobility's (n=190) official Instagram accounts, as well as Bird's (n=313) and Tier Mobility's (n=67) official Twitter accounts, were collected from November 9, 2018, to October 7, 2019. Rules for coding content of posts were informed by previous research. RESULTS: Among posts to Bird's Instagram account, 69.3% (199/287) had a person visible with an e-scooter, 9.1% (26/287) contained persons wearing protective gear, and there were no mentions of protective gear in captions corresponding to the post. Among posts to Tier Mobility's Instagram account, 84.7% (161/190) contained a person visible with an e-scooter, 36.3% (69/190) contained persons wearing protective gear, and 4.2% (8/190) of captions corresponding to posts mentioned protective gear. Among posts to Bird's Twitter account, 71.9% (225/313) had an image, of which 44.0% (99/225) contained a person visible with an e-scooter and 15.1% (34/225) contained persons wearing protective gear. Among posts to Tier Mobility's Twitter account, 78% (52/67) had an image, of which 52% (27/52) contained a person with an e-scooter and 21% (11/52) contained persons wearing protective gear. CONCLUSIONS: Findings show that modeling and promoting safety is rare on Bird's and Tier Mobility's official social media accounts, which may contribute to the normalization of unsafe riding practices. Social media platforms may offer a potential avenue for public health officials to intervene with rider safety campaigns for public education.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.192
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.170 · 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

Citations22
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Public Health and SurveillanceSame topicUrban Transport and AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207