The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
WHAT THE HASHTAG?: A content analysis of Canadian politics on Twitter
Abstract
Twitter is the latest social networking tool said to be reshaping politics. Twitter allows subscribers to write a 140-character status update, called a ‘tweet'. This research analyzes the intersection of microblogging and Canadian politics. There is little scholarship on the political aspects of Twitter. This paper seeks to fill this gap through a content analysis of the most popular Canadian political hashtag, #cdnpoli. Designated by a ‘hash' symbol (#), a hashtag is a keyword assigned to information that describes a tweet and aides in searching. With 50 million tweets per day, hashtags are central to organizing information on Twitter. Hashtags organize discussion around specific topics or events. Political hashtags came to prominence in events like the 2009 Iran presidential election. Indeed, #iranelection was the number one news topic on Twitter in 2009. The popular literature suggests that Twitter is a democratic media because it allows for on-the-ground reporting of breaking news and democratic activism. This analysis shows that informing is the primary function of a political hashtag such as #cdnpoli. Political dialogue and reporting is rare. Contributors scour the internet for relevant online information on Canadian politics and use #cdnpoli as a dissemination feed. The value of a political hashtag derives from the real-time nature of the information shared.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship
boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x · Cited by 16,251
What do bloggers do: an average day on an average political blog
McKenna, L., & Pole, A. (2007) · Public Choice · doi:10.1007/s11127-007-9203-8 · Cited by 94
Cited by
Empath: Understanding Topic Signals in Large-Scale Text
Fast, E., Chen, B., & Bernstein, M. S. (2016) · Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2858036.2858535 · Cited by 413
Graham, T., Broersma, M., Hazelhoff, K., & van 't Haar, G. (2013) · Information, Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2013.785581 · Cited by 363
Theocharis, Y., Barberá, P., Fazekas, Z., Popa, S. A., & Parnet, O. (2016) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/jcom.12259 · Cited by 237
On the interpretation of digital trace data in communication and social computing research
Freelon, D. (2014) · Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media · doi:10.1080/08838151.2013.875018 · Cited by 132
Williams, A., & Gonlin, V. (2017) · Information, Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2017.1303077 · Cited by 57
Metadata
- Authors
- Small, T. A.
- Venue
- Information, Communication & Society
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2011-09
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 872-895
- ISSN
- 1369-118X (ISSN-L)
- 1468-4462
- OpenAlex
- W1505742155
- Cited by
- 433
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 58.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.