Public Discussion of Anthrax on Twitter: Using Machine Learning to Identify Relevant Topics and Events
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Social media allows researchers to study opinions and reactions to events in real time. One area needing more study is anthrax-related events. A computational framework that utilizes machine learning techniques was created to collect tweets discussing anthrax, further categorize them as relevant by the month of data collection, and detect discussions on anthrax-related events. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to detect discussions on anthrax-related events and to determine the relevance of the tweets and topics of discussion over 12 months of data collection. METHODS: This is an infoveillance study, using tweets in English containing the keyword "Anthrax" and "Bacillus anthracis", collected from September 25, 2017, through August 15, 2018. Machine learning techniques were used to determine what people were tweeting about anthrax. Data over time was plotted to determine whether an event was detected (a 3-fold spike in tweets). A machine learning classifier was created to categorize tweets by relevance to anthrax. Relevant tweets by month were examined using a topic modeling approach to determine the topics of discussion over time and how these events influence that discussion. RESULTS: -score=0.80). In total, 26 topics were associated with anthrax-related events, tweets that were highly retweeted, natural outbreaks, and news stories. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that tweets related to anthrax can be collected and analyzed over time to determine what people are discussing and to detect key anthrax-related events. Future studies are required to focus only on opinion tweets, use the methodology to study other terrorism events, or to monitor for terrorism threats.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".