Social Media Platform: Measuring Readability and Socio-Economic Status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social media gives researchers an invaluable opportunity to gain insight into different facets of human life.Researchers put a great emphasis on categorizing the socioeconomic status (SES) of individuals to help predict various findings of interest. Forum uses, hashtags and so on are common tools of conversations grouping. On the other hand, crowdsourcing is a concept that involves gathering intelligence to group online user community based on common interest. This paper provides a mechanism to look at writings on social media and group them based on their academic background. We build upon earlier work where we analyzed online forum posts from various geographical regions in the USA and Canada and characterized the readability scores of such users. Specifically, we collected 1000 tweets from the members of the US Senate and computed the Flesch-Kincaid readability score for the Senators. Comparing the Senators’ tweets to the ones from average citizens, we note the following. 1) US Senators’ readability based on their tweets rate is much higher affirming the gap between the academic performance of US Senators and their average citizen, and 2) the immense difference among average citizen’s score compared to those of US Senators is attributed to the wide spectrum of academic attainment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".