MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385690377 · doi:10.2196/preprints.51698

A Typology of Social Media Use by Human Service Nonprofits: Mixed Methods Study (Preprint)

2023· preprint· en· W4385690377 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jia Xue, Micheal L. Shier, Junxiang Chen, Y Wang, Chengda Zheng, Chen Chen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Relations and Crisis Communication
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintTypologySocial mediaService (business)Social network serviceSociologyBusinessAdvertisingMarketingSocial scienceSocial influenceComputer scienceWorld Wide WebAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<sec> <title>BACKGROUND</title> Nonprofit organizations are increasingly using social media to improve their communication strategies with the broader population. However, within the domain of human service nonprofits, there is hesitancy to fully use social media tools, and there is limited scope among organizational personnel in applying their potential beyond self-promotion and service advertisement. There is a pressing need for greater conceptual clarity to support education and training on the varied reasons for using social media to increase organizational outcomes. </sec> <sec> <title>OBJECTIVE</title> This study leverages the potential of Twitter (subsequently rebranded as X [X Corp]) to examine the online communication content within a sample (n=133) of nonprofit sexual assault (SA) centers in Canada. To achieve this, we developed a typology using a qualitative and supervised machine learning model for the automatic classification of tweets posted by these centers. </sec> <sec> <title>METHODS</title> Using a mixed methods approach that combines machine learning and qualitative analysis, we manually coded 10,809 tweets from 133 SA centers in Canada, spanning the period from March 2009 to March 2023. These manually labeled tweets were used as the training data set for the supervised machine learning process, which allowed us to classify 286,551 organizational tweets. The classification model based on supervised machine learning yielded satisfactory results, prompting the use of unsupervised machine learning to classify the topics within each thematic category and identify latent topics. The qualitative thematic analysis, in combination with topic modeling, provided a contextual understanding of each theme. Sentiment analysis was conducted to reveal the emotions conveyed in the tweets. We conducted validation of the model with 2 independent data sets. </sec> <sec> <title>RESULTS</title> Manual annotation of 10,809 tweets identified seven thematic categories: (1) community engagement, (2) organization administration, (3) public awareness, (4) political advocacy, (5) support for others, (6) partnerships, and (7) appreciation. Organization administration was the most frequent segment, and political advocacy and partnerships were the smallest segments. The supervised machine learning model achieved an accuracy of 63.4% in classifying tweets. The sentiment analysis revealed a prevalence of neutral sentiment across all categories. The emotion analysis indicated that fear was predominant, whereas joy was associated with the partnership and appreciation tweets. Topic modeling identified distinct themes within each category, providing valuable insights into the prevalent discussions surrounding SA and related issues. </sec> <sec> <title>CONCLUSIONS</title> This research contributes an original theoretical model that sheds light on how human service nonprofits use social media to achieve their online organizational communication objectives across 7 thematic categories. The study advances our comprehension of social media use by nonprofits, presenting a comprehensive typology that captures the diverse communication objectives and contents of these organizations, which provide content to expand training and education for nonprofit leaders to connect and engage with the public, policy experts, other organizations, and potential service users. </sec>

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 armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Qualitativelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designlow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.331
Threshold uncertainty score0.965

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.157
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.317 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designQualitative · Other design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPublic Relations and Crisis CommunicationFrench-language works237,207