Adaptive method for following dynamic topics on twitter
Open accessAbstract
Many research social studies of public response on social media require following (i.e., tracking) topics on Twitter for long periods of time. The current approaches rely on streaming tweets based on some hashtags or keywords, or following some Twitter accounts. Such approaches lead to limited coverage of on-topic tweets. In this paper, we introduce a novel technique for following such topics in a more effective way. A topic is defined as a set of well-prepared queries that cover the static side of the topic. We propose an automatic approach that adapts to emerging aspects of a tracked broad topic over time. We tested our tracking approach on three broad dynamic topics that are hot in different categories: Egyptian politics, Syrian conflict, and international sports. We measured the effectiveness of our approach over four full days spanning a period of four months to ensure consistency in effectiveness. Experimental results showed that, on average, our approach achieved over 100% increase in recall relative to the baseline Boolean approach, while maintaining an acceptable precision of 83%.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The choice of keywords in keyword-based queries shapes the resulting datasets.
“The choice of keywords in keyword-based queries shapes the resulting datasets.”
From Social Data: Biases, Methodological Pitfalls, and Ethical Boundaries (2019) · cites this paper as Magdy and Elsayed, 2014
Cites
Political Polarization on Twitter
Conover, M., Ratkiewicz, J., Francisco, M., Goncalves, B., Menczer, F., & Flammini, A. (2021) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v5i1.14126 · Cited by 626 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…task are news monitoring (Magdy, 2013), crisis management (Vieweg et al., 2010), customer feedback detection (Chen at al., 2013), public political polarization analysis (Conover, 2011), election results prediction (Tumasjan et al., 2010), and public healthcare monitoring tools (Ali et al., 2013).”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Social Data: Biases, Methodological Pitfalls, and Ethical Boundaries
Olteanu, A., Castillo, C., Diaz, F., & Kıcıman, E. (2019) · Frontiers in Big Data · doi:10.3389/fdata.2019.00013 · Cited by 763 · see citing works
Social Data: Biases, Methodological Pitfalls, and Ethical Boundaries
Olteanu, A., Castillo, C., Diaz, F., & Kiciman, E. (2016) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2886526 · Cited by 763 · see citing works
- Authors
- Magdy, W., & Elsayed, T.
- Affiliations
- Quantum Chemistry Research Institute (JP)
- Qatar University (QA)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media
- Published
- 2014-05-16
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 335-345
- ISSN
- 2162-3449 (ISSN-L)
- 2334-0770
- OpenAlex
- W2263984121
- Cited by
- 26
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 3.41
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (publishedVersion)
- AAAI Publications (The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)) (submittedVersion)
- Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Qatar University QSpace (Qatar University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web Data Mining and Analysis
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
- Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Computational and Text Analysis Methods
- Keywords
- topic tracking, Twitter, Egyptian politics, Syrian civil war, sport
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