MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3036233656 · doi:10.7939/r3-qv9w-g469

Harnessing Tweets to get the Pulse of a City

2020· article· en· W3036233656 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Esha

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Alberta Library · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Relations and Crisis Communication
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceInternet privacyGeographyWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Twitter is one of the most popular social media applications and is used for a number of reasons. Every day, users share a vast amount of information through tweets that provide location-relevant updates, of events happening in real-time, and to inform other users of upcoming events in a given geographical location. The information in tweets can be used, not only to learn about what is happening in a city, but also to understand users’ emotions (e.g., love, fear) and sentiments (e.g., positive, negative) on topics and events as they unfold over time. Such information will be relevant and useful only when the right location is identified for a given set of tweets. Further, considering the volume of data generated on Twitter, both categorization of tweets and visualizations can help users in managing information overload. Categorization of tweets into topic labels can help in identifying broad level categories of topics discussed in a city and filtering unwanted tweets by allowing users to focus on accessing tweets from categories that are of interest to them. Visualization can play a critical role in presenting large and complex data into more easily discerning formats to facilitate comparison on different facets. This research focused on these multiple areas including identification of locations relevant to tweets, visualizations of location-related sentiments and emotions, and categorization of tweets into topic labels. The identification of tweet-relevant location is a challenging problem as location names are not always explicitly included in most of the tweets. However, location related information is implicitly included with the insertion of user-ids and hashtags in tweets. Thus, the research aim is to improve identification of tweet-relevant location by harnessing in-formation embedded in user-ids (e.g., @EPLdotCA is the userId of the public libraries in the city of Edmonton) and hashtags (e.g., #yeg is the hashtag for the city of Edmonton). This novel approach, termed DigiCities, focused on using this implicit information to identify tweet-relevant locations. DigiCities are digital equivalents of cities as represented in digital spaces; cities are primarily represented by People, Organizations and Places (POP) in the physical environment, which has digital presence on Twitter as well as through user-ids and hashtags. Digital profiles of cities are created using user-ids and hashtags of people, organizations and places associated with each city and are then used to identify and reinforce city names in tweets. The digital profiles of eight cities from the Province of Alberta in Canada were developed, and a number of classification experiments using different algorithms including k-Nearest Neighbour (kNN), Naïve Bayes (NB) and Sequential Minimal Optimization (SMO) were conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed approach. The classification accuracy score improved for each algorithm after the implementation of the city profile on Twitter data. Furthermore, tweets from these eight locations were further analyzed to identify users’ sentiments and emotions, and associated topics. Multiple visuals of results achieved were developed to compare and contrast sentiments and emotions during different temporal periods at city level.

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)0.007
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Alberta LibrarySame topicPublic Relations and Crisis CommunicationFrench-language works237,207