From theory to practice: insights and hurdles in collecting social media data for social science research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social media has profoundly changed our modes of self-expression, communication, and participation in public discourse, generating volumes of conversations and content that cover every aspect of our social lives. Social media platforms have thus become increasingly important as data sources to identify social trends and phenomena. In recent years, academics have steadily lost ground on access to social media data as technology companies have set more restrictions on Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) or entirely closed public APIs. This circumstance halts the work of many social scientists who have used such data to study issues of public good. We considered the viability of eight approaches for image-based social media data collection: data philanthropy organizations, data repositories, data donation, third-party data companies, homegrown tools, and various web scraping tools and scripts. This paper discusses the advantages and challenges of these approaches from literature and from the authors' experience. We conclude the paper by discussing mechanisms for improving social media data collection that will enable this future frontier of social science 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 | 0.518 | 0.651 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.087 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.056 | 0.096 |
| Open science | 0.012 | 0.031 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".