Perceptions and Discussions of Snus on Twitter: Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the increasing popularity of snus, it is essential to understand the public perception of this oral tobacco product. Twitter-a popular social media platform that is being used to share personal experiences and opinions-provides an ideal data source for studying the public perception of snus. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to examine public perceptions and discussions of snus on Twitter. METHODS: Twitter posts (tweets) about snus were collected through the Twitter streaming application programming interface from March 11, 2021, to February 26, 2022. A temporal analysis was conducted to examine the change in number of snus-related tweets over time. A sentiment analysis was conducted to examine the sentiments of snus-related tweets. Topic modeling was applied to tweets to determine popular topics. Finally, a keyword search and hand-coding were used to understand the health symptoms mentioned in snus-related tweets. RESULTS: The sentiment analysis showed that the proportion of snus-related tweets with a positive sentiment was significantly higher than the proportion of negative sentiment tweets (4341/11,631, 37.32% vs 3094/11,631, 26.60%; P<.001). The topic modeling analysis revealed that positive tweets focused on snus's harm reduction and snus use being an alternative to smoking, while negative tweets focused on health concerns related to snus. Mouth and respiratory symptoms were the most mentioned health symptoms in snus-related tweets. CONCLUSIONS: This study examined the public perception of snus and popular snus-related topics discussed on Twitter, thus providing a guide for policy makers with regard to the future formulation and adjustment of tobacco regulation policies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".