Comparing methods for creating a national random sample of twitter users.

IF 2.3 Q3 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS Social Network Analysis and Mining Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-14 DOI:10.1007/s13278-024-01327-5
Meysam Alizadeh, Darya Zare, Zeynab Samei, Mohammadamin Alizadeh, Mael Kubli, Mohammadhadi Aliahmadi, Sarvenaz Ebrahimi, Fabrizio Gilardi
{"title":"Comparing methods for creating a national random sample of twitter users.","authors":"Meysam Alizadeh, Darya Zare, Zeynab Samei, Mohammadamin Alizadeh, Mael Kubli, Mohammadhadi Aliahmadi, Sarvenaz Ebrahimi, Fabrizio Gilardi","doi":"10.1007/s13278-024-01327-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Twitter data has been widely used by researchers across various social and computer science disciplines. A common aim when working with Twitter data is the construction of a random sample of users from a given country. However, while several methods have been proposed in the literature, their comparative performance is mostly unexplored. In this paper, we implement four common methods to create a random sample of Twitter users in the US: <i>1% Stream</i>, <i>Bounding Box</i>, <i>Location Query</i>, and <i>Language Query</i>. Then, we compare these methods according to their tweet- and user-level metrics as well as their accuracy in estimating the US population. Our results show that users collected by the <i>1% Stream</i> method tend to have more tweets, tweets per day, followers, and friends, a fewer number of likes, are younger accounts, and include more male users compared to the other three methods. Moreover, it achieves the minimum error in estimating the US population. However, the <i>1% Stream</i> method is time-consuming, cannot be used for the past time frames, and is not suitable when user engagement is part of the study. In situation where these three drawbacks are important, our results support the <i>Bounding Box</i> method as the second-best method.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at. 10.1007/s13278-024-01327-5.</p>","PeriodicalId":21842,"journal":{"name":"Social Network Analysis and Mining","volume":"14 1","pages":"160"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11861139/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Network Analysis and Mining","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-024-01327-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Twitter data has been widely used by researchers across various social and computer science disciplines. A common aim when working with Twitter data is the construction of a random sample of users from a given country. However, while several methods have been proposed in the literature, their comparative performance is mostly unexplored. In this paper, we implement four common methods to create a random sample of Twitter users in the US: 1% Stream, Bounding Box, Location Query, and Language Query. Then, we compare these methods according to their tweet- and user-level metrics as well as their accuracy in estimating the US population. Our results show that users collected by the 1% Stream method tend to have more tweets, tweets per day, followers, and friends, a fewer number of likes, are younger accounts, and include more male users compared to the other three methods. Moreover, it achieves the minimum error in estimating the US population. However, the 1% Stream method is time-consuming, cannot be used for the past time frames, and is not suitable when user engagement is part of the study. In situation where these three drawbacks are important, our results support the Bounding Box method as the second-best method.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at. 10.1007/s13278-024-01327-5.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Social Network Analysis and Mining
Social Network Analysis and Mining COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
14.30%
发文量
141
期刊介绍: Social Network Analysis and Mining (SNAM) is a multidisciplinary journal serving researchers and practitioners in academia and industry. It is the main venue for a wide range of researchers and readers from computer science, network science, social sciences, mathematical sciences, medical and biological sciences, financial, management and political sciences. We solicit experimental and theoretical work on social network analysis and mining using a wide range of techniques from social sciences, mathematics, statistics, physics, network science and computer science. The main areas covered by SNAM include: (1) data mining advances on the discovery and analysis of communities, personalization for solitary activities (e.g. search) and social activities (e.g. discovery of potential friends), the analysis of user behavior in open forums (e.g. conventional sites, blogs and forums) and in commercial platforms (e.g. e-auctions), and the associated security and privacy-preservation challenges; (2) social network modeling, construction of scalable and customizable social network infrastructure, identification and discovery of complex, dynamics, growth, and evolution patterns using machine learning and data mining approaches or multi-agent based simulation; (3) social network analysis and mining for open source intelligence and homeland security. Papers should elaborate on data mining and machine learning or related methods, issues associated to data preparation and pattern interpretation, both for conventional data (usage logs, query logs, document collections) and for multimedia data (pictures and their annotations, multi-channel usage data). Topics include but are not limited to: Applications of social network in business engineering, scientific and medical domains, homeland security, terrorism and criminology, fraud detection, public sector, politics, and case studies.
期刊最新文献
Correction: Public sentiment toward renewable energy in Morocco: opinion mining using a rule-based approach Do users adopt extremist beliefs from exposure to hate subreddits? Comparing methods for creating a national random sample of twitter users. Analyzing online public opinion on Thailand-China high-speed train and Laos-China railway mega-projects using advanced machine learning for sentiment analysis Semantic overlapping community detection with embedding multi-dimensional relationships and spatial context
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1