MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7132947029

Analyzing the Role of Users' Interactions in Information Spread

2015· dissertation· W7132947029 on OpenAlexaff
Milad Eftekhar

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2015
Typedissertation
Language
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicComplex Network Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdentification (biology)Set (abstract data type)FriendshipSocial network (sociolinguistics)Social mediaSocial network analysisRaw dataUser group
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The emergence of social platforms has provided us with a vast amount of raw data on people's daily activities, their social connections, interactions, interests, influence, etc. This creates an opportunity to extract valuable insights, helpful in various applications including but not limited to the identification of the trending topics, community detection, health purposes, and marketing. This thesis designs a platform that analyzes users' interactions (e.g., posts, likes, and shares) and connections (e.g., friendship and followership), and maximizes information spread in the network accordingly. There are numerous applications to this such as advertising, knowledge dissemination, encouraging the adoption of productive behavior in a society, etc. I present a 3-part platform that utilizes users' activities to maximize information spread. It starts by analyzing users' posts (Step 1), and proceeds with users' interactions (Step 2), and connections (Step 3). This information is utilized to locate user communities formed based on topical cascades. Targeting these communities helps to increase the spread of information. In the first step, posts (e.g., tweets) are categorized into partitions representing topics of discussion. Part 2 identifies bursty user groups for each topic of interest. A bursty user group includes a collection of socially connected users who are active and influential with regard to a specific topic. Bursty user groups for a topic are the sources of previous activities on that topic and are of high importance in marketing campaigns. Finally having a limited budget for advertising (i.e., a fixed seed set size), Part 3 determines the best groups among all to target to maximize the spread of information in the network. The analysis is based on the state-of-the-art viral marketing models. All of the proposed algorithms have been extensively evaluated on real-world datasets including Twitter fire-hose, co-authorship, and telecommunication datasets. We present quantitative and qualitative experimental results in each chapter attesting to the practicality of our algorithms.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.351 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicComplex Network Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207