A Longitudinal Study of Topic Classification on Twitter
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Twitter represents a massively distributed information source over a kaleidoscope of topics ranging from social and political events to entertainment and sports news. While recent work has suggested that variations on standard classifiers can be effectively trained as topical filters (Lin, Snow, and Morgan 2011; Yang et al. 2014; Magdy and Elsayed 2014), there remain many open questions about the efficacy of such classification-based filtering approaches. For example, over a year or more after training, how well do such classifiers generalize to future novel topical content, and are such results stable across a range of topics? Furthermore, what features and feature classes are most critical for long-term classifier performance? To answer these questions, we collected a corpus of over 800 million English Tweets via the Twitter streaming API during 2013 and 2014 and learned topic classifiers for 10 diverse themes ranging from social issues to celebrity deaths to the “Iran nuclear deal”. The results of this long-term study of topic classifier performance provide a number of important insights, among them that (1) such classifiers can indeed generalize to novel topical content with high precision over a year or more after training and (2) simple terms and locations are the most informative feature classes (despite training on classes labeled via hashtags).
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it