Text mining applications to support health library practice: A case study on marijuana legalization Twitter analytics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Twitter is rich in data for text and data analytics research, with the ability to capture trends. OBJECTIVES: This study examines Canadian tweets on marijuana legalization and terminology used. Presented as a case study, Twitter analytics will demonstrate the varied applications of how this kind of research method may be used to inform library practice. METHODS: Twitter API was used to extract a subset of tweets using seven relevant hashtags. Using open-source programming tools, the sampled tweets were analysed between September to November 2018, identifying themes, frequently used terms, sentiment, and co-occurring hashtags. RESULTS: More than 1,176,000 tweets were collected. The most popular hashtag co-occurrence, two hashtags appearing together, was #cannabis and #CdnPoli. There was a high variance in the sentiment analysis of all collected tweets but most scores had neutral sentiment. DISCUSSION: The case study presents text-mining applications relevant to help make informed decisions in library practice through service analysis, quality analysis, and collection analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from sentiment analysis may determine usage patterns from users. There are several ways in which libraries may use text mining to make evidence-informed decisions such as examining all possible terminologies used by the public to help inform comprehensive evidence synthesis projects and build taxonomies for digital libraries and repositories.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | low |
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".