The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Multiple Facets of Influence: Identifying Political Influentials and Opinion Leaders on Twitter
Abstract
This study compares six metrics commonly used to identify influential players in two of Canada’s largest political Twitter communities based on the users, and ranking order of users, identified by each metric. All tweets containing the hashtag #CPC, representing the Conservative Party of Canada (government), and #NDP, representing the New Democratic Party of Canada (official opposition), were collected over a 2-week period in March 2013 and a follower network graph was created. Social network analysis and content analysis were employed to identify influentials. Kendall’s τ was the primary quantitative measure for comparison. Categorization of Twitter profiles of users found within the top 20 most influential lists, according to each metric of influence, made up the qualitative portion of analysis. The authors find that measures of centrality—indegree and eigenvector centrality—identify the traditional political elite (media outlets, journalists, politicians) as influential, whereas measures considering the quality of messages and interactions provide a different group of influencers, including political commentators and bloggers. Finally, the authors investigate the possibility of using the local clustering coefficient of nodes to identify those who are both aware of the traditional elite and embedded in tightly knit communities, similar to the “opinion leader,” described in the Two-Step Flow Hypothesis.
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
What is Twitter, a social network or a news media?
Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., & Moon, S. (2010) · Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web · doi:10.1145/1772690.1772751 · Cited by 6,652
Content Analysis in Mass Communication: Assessment and Reporting of Intercoder Reliability
Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2002) · Human Communication Research · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00826.x · Cited by 3,068
Measuring user influence in twitter: The million follower fallacy
Cha, M., Haddadi, H., Benevenuto, F., & Gummadi, K. (2010) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v4i1.14033 · Cited by 3,022 · cited 4×
“This sample is large enough to provide variety but small enough to conduct meaningful qualitative analysis and is in line with past studies (e.g., Cha & Gummadi, 2010; Wu et al., 2011).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialEveryone's an influencer: quantifying influence on twitter
Bakshy, E., Hofman, J. M., Mason, W. A., & Watts, D. J. (2011) · Proceedings of the fourth ACM international conference on Web search and data mining · doi:10.1145/1935826.1935845 · Cited by 1,689
Information contagion: an empirical study of the spread of news on digg and twitter social networks
Lerman, K., & Ghosh, R. (2010) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v4i1.14021 · Cited by 813
Cited by
Who to Trust on Social Media: How Opinion Leaders and Seekers Avoid Disinformation and Echo Chambers
Dubois, E., Minaeian, S., Paquet-Labelle, A., & Beaudry, S. (2020) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/2056305120913993 · Cited by 105
Self-citationWho is responsible for Twitter’s echo chamber problem? Evidence from 2016 U.S. election networks
Guo, L., A. Rohde, J., & Wu, H. D. (2020) · Information, Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2018.1499793 · Cited by 104
Bright, J., Hale, S., Ganesh, B., Bulovsky, A., Margetts, H., & Howard, P. (2020) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/0093650219872394 · Cited by 104
Wang, X., Zhang, M., Fan, W., & Zhao, K. (2022) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.24576 · Cited by 67
Harlow, S., & Benbrook, A. (2019) · Information, Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2017.1386705 · Cited by 60
Metadata
- Authors
- Dubois, E., & Gaffney, D.
- Venue
- American Behavioral Scientist
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2014-04-08
- Volume
- 58
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1260-1277
- ISSN
- 0002-7642 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-3381
- OpenAlex
- W1983403939
- Cited by
- 262
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 49.26
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Multiple Facets of Influence: Identifying Political Influentials and Opinion Leaders on Twitter. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0002764214527088
- The paper
- Dubois, E., & Gaffney, D. (2014). The Multiple Facets of Influence: Identifying Political Influentials and Opinion Leaders on Twitter. American Behavioral Scientist. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764214527088
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.