MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391772374 · doi:10.2196/50552

Bridging and Bonding Social Capital by Analyzing the Demographics, User Activities, and Social Network Dynamics of Sexual Assault Centers on Twitter: Mixed Methods Study

2024· article· en· W4391772374 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jia Xue, Qiaoru Zhang, Yun Zhang, Hong Shi, Chengda Zheng, Jingchuan Fan, Linxiao Zhang, Chen Chen, Luye Li, Micheal L. Shier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Internet Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSexual Assault and Victimization Studies
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)University of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial mediaSocial capitalSocial network (sociolinguistics)Public relationsPopularitySociologyInternet privacyPsychologyPolitical scienceWorld Wide WebSocial psychologyComputer scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Social media platforms have gained popularity as communication tools for organizations to engage with clients and the public, disseminate information, and raise awareness about social issues. From a social capital perspective, relationship building is seen as an investment, involving a complex interplay of tangible and intangible resources. Social media-based social capital signifies the diverse social networks that organizations can foster through their engagement on social media platforms. Literature underscores the great significance of further investigation into the scope and nature of social media use, particularly within sectors dedicated to service delivery, such as sexual assault organizations. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to fill a research gap by investigating the use of Twitter by sexual assault support agencies in Canada. It seeks to understand the demographics, user activities, and social network structure within these organizations on Twitter, focusing on building social capital. The research questions explore the demographic profile, geographic distribution, and Twitter activity of these organizations as well as the social network dynamics of bridging and bonding social capital. METHODS: This study used purposive sampling to investigate sexual assault centers in Canada with active Twitter accounts, resulting in the identification of 124 centers. The Twitter handles were collected, yielding 113 unique handles, and their corresponding Twitter IDs were obtained and validated. A total of 294,350 tweets were collected from these centers, covering >93.54% of their Twitter activity. Preprocessing was conducted to prepare the data, and descriptive analysis was used to determine the center demographics and age. Furthermore, geolocation mapping was performed to visualize the center locations. Social network analysis was used to explore the intricate relationships within the network of sexual assault center Twitter accounts, using various metrics to assess the network structure and connectivity dynamics. RESULTS: The results highlight the substantial presence of sexual assault organizations on Twitter, particularly in provinces such as Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec, underscoring the importance of tailored engagement strategies considering regional disparities. The analysis of Twitter account creation years shows a peak in 2012, followed by a decline in new account creations in subsequent years. The monthly tweet activity shows November as the most active month, whereas July had the lowest activity. The study also reveals variations in Twitter activity, account creation patterns, and social network dynamics, identifying influential social queens and marginalized entities within the network. CONCLUSIONS: This study presents a comprehensive landscape of the demographics and activities of sexual assault centers in Canada on Twitter. This study suggests that future research should explore the long-term consequences of social media use and examine stakeholder perceptions, providing valuable insights to improve communication practices within the nonprofit human services sector and further the missions of these organizations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.237
Threshold uncertainty score0.470

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.078
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.399 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical Internet ResearchSame topicSexual Assault and Victimization StudiesFrench-language works237,207