MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3161149761 · doi:10.31234/osf.io/n3teh

Parenting Online: Analyzing Information Provided by Parenting-Focused Twitter Accounts

2021· preprint· en· W3161149761 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rebecca M. Ryan, Pamela Davis‐Kean, Leticia Bode, Juliane Krüger, Zeina Mneimneh, Lisa Singh

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Development and Digital Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMichigan Institute for Data Science, University of MichiganNational Science Foundation
KeywordsEntertainmentQuarter (Canadian coin)Social mediaPsychologySocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyComputer scienceWorld Wide WebPolitical scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the content of parenting information shared on social media by identifying the range and frequency of topics shared by parenting-focused accounts on Twitter. Using the Twitter API, a universe of 675,069 tweets were gathered from 74 of the most-followed parenting-focused accounts, or ‘hubs’, from January 2016 to June 2018. Using a custom, semi-automated topic modeling approach, we identified the topics – and subtopics within topics – parenting hubs shared with their followers and investigated whether any meaningful differences in topical focus existed between accounts targeting mothers versus fathers. Results indicate that over one third of tweets were about Parenting Behavior and nearly one quarter about Health, with Entertainment, School and Motherhood and Fatherhood generally as less tweeted topics. Mother-focused accounts tweeted more about Health than father-focused accounts, which tweeted more than others about Entertainment. Implications for future parenting and social media research are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.727
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicChild Development and Digital TechnologyFrench-language works237,207