MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4249327984 · doi:10.1145/2463656

Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Modeling Social Media

2013· paratext· en· W4249327984 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeparatext
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicComplex Network Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial mediaComputer scienceWorld Wide WebContext (archaeology)Recommender systemSocial media optimizationSocial computingData science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In our first workshop on Modeling Social Media (MSM 2010 in Toronto, Canada), we explored various different models of social media ranging from user modeling, hypertext models, software engineering models, sociological models and framework models. In our second workshop (MSM 2011 in Boston, USA), we addressed the user interface aspects of modeling social media. In our third workshop (MSM 2012 in Milwaukee, USA), we looked at the collective intelligence in social media, i.e. making sense of the content and context from social media websites such as Facebook, Twitter, Google+ and Foursquare by analyzing tweets, tags, blog posts, likes, posts and check-ins, in order to create a new knowledge and semantic meaning. The goal of this workshop (MSM 2013) is to continue our vibrant discussion on social media mining and modeling with a special focus on recommender systems for social media applications. Hence, the workshop aims to attract and discuss various novel aspects of social media mining, modeling and doing recommendations on top of these data/models. In short, the workshop invites topics such as social media mining methods/techniques, novel approaches to model users or things in social media, frameworks to harvest and/or display social media data and new social media recommender methods/techniques/algorithms or interfaces supporting users for instance in information finding, meta-data application etc. Thus, our goal is to bring together researchers and practitioners from all over the world with diverse backgrounds interested in 1) exploring different perspectives and approaches to mine (complex) and analyse social media data, 2) modeling social media users and 3) building applications such as recommender systems on top of this data/models.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.871
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.257 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicComplex Network Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207