What to watch: Practical considerations and strategies for using YouTube for research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
YouTube is the second-most visited webpage in the world and boasts over 2 billion users and 500 h of videos uploaded every hour. Despite this popularity, relatively few articles have discussed the practical use of searching and YouTube as a research tool and source of data. The purpose of our paper is to propose a step-by-step schematic for utilizing the YouTube platform. Our discussions include (a) when/whether to use YouTube for research; (b) selecting an appropriate research design; (c) how to search for YouTube data; (d) what data can be pulled from YouTube; and (e) the contextual limitations for interpreting YouTube data. Further, we provide practical strategies and considerations when searching, collecting, or interpreting YouTube data. These discussions are informed by our own work using the YouTube platform. Effective methods used to search for YouTube data are likely to extend beyond simply searching the platform itself; the search strategy and search results themselves should also be documented. While not exhaustive, we feel these considerations and strategies present themselves as a conceptual foothold for future research using the YouTube platform.
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 | 0.222 | 0.298 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.043 | 0.059 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.011 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".