MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3201313776 · doi:10.2196/27385

Using Google Trends to Inform the Population Size Estimation and Spatial Distribution of Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex With Men: Proof-of-concept Study

2021· article· en· W3201313776 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Kiffer G. Card, Nathan J. Lachowsky, Robert S Hogg

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicData-Driven Disease Surveillance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaSimon Fraser University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsMen who have sex with menPopulationPopulation sizeEstimationSexual orientationPublic healthGeographyDemographyPsychologySociologyMedicineSocial psychologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: We must triangulate data sources to understand best the spatial distribution and population size of marginalized populations to empower public health leaders to address population-specific needs. Existing population size estimation techniques are difficult and limited. OBJECTIVE: We sought to identify a passive surveillance strategy that utilizes internet and social media to enhance, validate, and triangulate population size estimates of gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (gbMSM). METHODS: We explored the Google Trends platform to approximate an estimate of the spatial heterogeneity of the population distribution of gbMSM. This was done by comparing the prevalence of the search term "gay porn" with that of the search term "porn." RESULTS: Our results suggested that most cities have a gbMSM population size between 2% and 4% of their total population, with large urban centers having higher estimates relative to rural or suburban areas. This represents nearly a double up of population size estimates compared to that found by other methods, which typically find that between 1% and 2% of the total population are gbMSM. We noted that our method was limited by unequal coverage in internet usage across Canada and differences in the frequency of porn use by gender and sexual orientation. CONCLUSIONS: We argue that Google Trends estimates may provide, for many public health planning purposes, adequate city-level estimates of gbMSM population size in regions with a high prevalence of internet access and for purposes in which a precise or narrow estimate of the population size is not required. Furthermore, the Google Trends platform does so in less than a minute at no cost, making it extremely timely and cost-effective relative to more precise (and complex) estimates. We also discuss future steps for further validation of this approach.

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)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.066
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.187

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.066
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Public Health and SurveillanceSame topicData-Driven Disease SurveillanceFrench-language works237,207