Gretchen Is: On Your Facebook Profile, Analyzing the Sociolinguistics of Your Status Message
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some Facebook status messages get dozens of comments and "likes", while others are not interacted with at all. But is this social success just good luck, or are there certain features that can allow us to predict whether a status will be popular or not? This presentation examines a cross‐section of authentic Facebook status messages in an attempt to figure out what makes a status socially successful. Three types of status message are identified: the narcissistic status, the informative status, and the shared‐reference status. The narcissistic status is the stereotypical expression of emotion or mundane activity, where the audience is less important, and consequently less engaged, than the author. The informative status provides basic information about the user's current location or activity, which can allow him or her to be more easily contacted by friends, but does not tend to inspire much conversation. However, it is the shared‐reference status, which refers to an experience that the author shares with a relatively small group of friends, that inspires the greatest levels of dialogue in the form of comments and "likes." Further details to be discussed include the varieties of shared‐reference status and the relation of Facebook statuses to external perception of them and to real‐life rules of social interaction.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".