The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Tracking "gross community happiness" from tweets
Abstract
Policy makers are calling for new socio-economic measures that reflect subjective well-being, to complement traditional measures of material welfare as the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Self-reporting has been found to be reasonably accurate in measuring one's well-being and conveniently tallies with sentiment expressed on social media (e.g., those satisfied with life use more positive than negative words in their Facebook status updates). Social media content can thus be used to track well-being of individuals. A question left unexplored is whether such content can be used to track well-being of entire physical communities as well. To this end, we consider Twitter users based in a variety of London census communities, and study the relationship between sentiment expressed in tweets and community socio-economic well-being. We find that the two are highly correlated: the higher the normalized sentiment score of a community's tweets, the higher the community's socio-economic well-being. This suggests that monitoring tweets is an effective way of tracking community well-being too.
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
Dolan, P., Peasgood, T., & White, M. (2008) · Journal of Economic Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.joep.2007.09.001 · Cited by 3,121
An unobtrusive behavioral model of "gross national happiness"
Kramer, A. D. I. (2010) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1753326.1753369 · Cited by 247
Cited by
A multi-source dataset of urban life in the city of Milan and the Province of Trentino
Barlacchi, G., De Nadai, M., Larcher, R., Casella, A., Chitic, C., Torrisi, G., Antonelli, F., Vespignani, A., Pentland, A., & Lepri, B. (2015) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/sdata.2015.55 · Cited by 560
Sensing Trending Topics in Twitter
Aiello, L. M., Petkos, G., Martin, C., Corney, D., Papadopoulos, S., Skraba, R., Goker, A., Kompatsiaris, I., & Jaimes, A. (2013) · IEEE Transactions on Multimedia · doi:10.1109/tmm.2013.2265080 · Cited by 431
Measuring objective and subjective well-being: dimensions and data sources
Voukelatou, V., Gabrielli, L., Miliou, I., Cresci, S., Sharma, R., Tesconi, M., & Pappalardo, L. (2021) · International Journal of Data Science and Analytics · doi:10.1007/s41060-020-00224-2 · Cited by 365
Daily Stress Recognition from Mobile Phone Data, Weather Conditions and Individual Traits
Bogomolov, A., Lepri, B., Ferron, M., Pianesi, F., & Pentland, A. (. (2014) · Proceedings of the 22nd ACM international conference on Multimedia · doi:10.1145/2647868.2654933 · Cited by 217
Emotional states vs. emotional words in social media
Beasley, A., & Mason, W. (2015) · Proceedings of the ACM Web Science Conference · doi:10.1145/2786451.2786473 · Cited by 38
Metadata
- Authors
- Quercia, D., Ellis, J., Capra, L., & Crowcroft, J.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2012-02-11
- Pages
- 965-968
- OpenAlex
- W2099352442
- Cited by
- 173
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 40.32
- 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: Tracking "gross community happiness" from tweets. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/2145204.2145347
- The paper
- Quercia, D., Ellis, J., Capra, L., & Crowcroft, J. (2012). Tracking "gross community happiness" from tweets. Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. https://doi.org/10.1145/2145204.2145347
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.