The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Tweet the debates: understanding community annotation of uncollected sources
Abstract
We investigate the practice of sharing short messages (microblogging) around live media events. Our focus is on Twitter and its usage during the 2008 Presidential Debates. We find that analysis of Twitter usage patterns around this media event can yield significant insights into the semantic structure and content of the media object. Specifically, we find that the level of Twitter activity serves as a predictor of changes in topics in the media event. Further we find that conversational cues can identify the key players in the media object and that the content of the Twitter posts can somewhat reflect the topics of discussion in the media object, but are mostly evaluative, in that they express the poster's reaction to the media. The key contribution of this work is an analysis of the practice of microblogging live events and the core metrics that can leveraged to evaluate and analyze this activity. Finally, we offer suggestions on how our model of segmentation and node identification could apply towards any live, real-time arbitrary event.
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 Analysis: Methods and Applications
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511815478 · Cited by 17,557
A vector space model for automatic indexing
Salton, G., Wong, A., & Yang, C. S. (1975) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/361219.361220 · Cited by 7,521
Krishnamurthy, B., Gill, P., & Arlitt, M. (2008) · Proceedings of the first workshop on Online social networks · doi:10.1145/1397735.1397741 · Cited by 697
Cited by
Semantic Sentiment Analysis of Twitter
Saif, H., He, Y., & Alani, H. (2012) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-35176-1_32 · Cited by 521
Tweet sentiment analysis with classifier ensembles
da Silva, N. F. F., Hruschka, E. R., & Hruschka, E. R. (2014) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2014.07.003 · Cited by 431
Exploiting social relations for sentiment analysis in microblogging
Hu, X., Tang, L., Tang, J., & Liu, H. (2013) · Proceedings of the sixth ACM international conference on Web search and data mining · doi:10.1145/2433396.2433465 · Cited by 384
More than a Feeling: Accuracy and Application of Sentiment Analysis
Hartmann, J., Heitmann, M., Siebert, C., & Schamp, C. (2023) · International Journal of Research in Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2022.05.005 · Cited by 356
Discovering users' topics of interest on twitter: a first look
Michelson, M., & Macskassy, S. A. (2010) · Proceedings of the fourth workshop on Analytics for noisy unstructured text data · doi:10.1145/1871840.1871852 · Cited by 323
Metadata
- Authors
- Shamma, D. A., Kennedy, L., & Churchill, E. F.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the first SIGMM workshop on Social media
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2009-10-23
- Pages
- 3-10
- OpenAlex
- W2037187099
- Cited by
- 299
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 46.15
- Type
- conference paper
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Tweet the debates: understanding community annotation of uncollected sources. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/1631144.1631148
- The paper
- Shamma, D. A., Kennedy, L., & Churchill, E. F. (2009). Tweet the debates: understanding community annotation of uncollected sources. Proceedings of the first SIGMM workshop on Social media. https://doi.org/10.1145/1631144.1631148
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.
