Using Twitter-Based Data for Sexual Violence Research: Scoping Review (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Scholars have used data from in-person interviews, administrative systems, and surveys for sexual violence research. Using Twitter as a data source for examining the nature of sexual violence is a relatively new and underexplored area of study. OBJECTIVE We aimed to perform a scoping review of the current literature on using Twitter data for researching sexual violence, elaborate on the validity of the methods, and discuss the implications and limitations of existing studies. METHODS We performed a literature search in the following 6 databases: APA PsycInfo (Ovid), Scopus, PubMed, International Bibliography of Social Sciences (ProQuest), Criminal Justice Abstracts (EBSCO), and Communications Abstracts (EBSCO), in April 2022. The initial search identified 3759 articles that were imported into Covidence. Seven independent reviewers screened these articles following 2 steps: (1) title and abstract screening, and (2) full-text screening. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) empirical research, (2) focus on sexual violence, (3) analysis of Twitter data (ie, tweets or Twitter metadata), and (4) text in English. Finally, we selected 121 articles that met the inclusion criteria and coded these articles. RESULTS We coded and presented the 121 articles using Twitter-based data for sexual violence research. About 70% (89/121, 73.6%) of the articles were published in peer-reviewed journals after 2018. The reviewed articles collectively analyzed about 79.6 million tweets. The primary approaches to using Twitter as a data source were content text analysis (112/121, 92.5%) and sentiment analysis (31/121, 25.6%). Hashtags (103/121, 85.1%) were the most prominent metadata feature, followed by tweet time and date, retweets, replies, URLs, and geotags. More than a third of the articles (51/121, 42.1%) used the application programming interface to collect Twitter data. Data analyses included qualitative thematic analysis, machine learning (eg, sentiment analysis, supervised machine learning, unsupervised machine learning, and social network analysis), and quantitative analysis. Only 10.7% (13/121) of the studies discussed ethical considerations. CONCLUSIONS We described the current state of using Twitter data for sexual violence research, developed a new taxonomy describing Twitter as a data source, and evaluated the methodologies. Research recommendations include the following: development of methods for data collection and analysis, in-depth discussions about ethical norms, exploration of specific aspects of sexual violence on Twitter, examination of tweets in multiple languages, and decontextualization of Twitter data. This review demonstrates the potential of using Twitter data in sexual violence research.
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 | 0.028 | 0.171 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.029 | 0.028 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.003 |
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".