Public Reaction to Scientific Research via Twitter Sentiment Prediction

Murtuza Shahzad, Hamed Alhoori
{"title":"Public Reaction to Scientific Research via Twitter Sentiment Prediction","authors":"Murtuza Shahzad, Hamed Alhoori","doi":"10.2478/jdis-2022-0003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Purpose Social media users share their ideas, thoughts, and emotions with other users. However, it is not clear how online users would respond to new research outcomes. This study aims to predict the nature of the emotions expressed by Twitter users toward scientific publications. Additionally, we investigate what features of the research articles help in such prediction. Identifying the sentiments of research articles on social media will help scientists gauge a new societal impact of their research articles. Design/methodology/approach Several tools are used for sentiment analysis, so we applied five sentiment analysis tools to check which are suitable for capturing a tweet's sentiment value and decided to use NLTK VADER and TextBlob. We segregated the sentiment value into negative, positive, and neutral. We measure the mean and median of tweets’ sentiment value for research articles with more than one tweet. We next built machine learning models to predict the sentiments of tweets related to scientific publications and investigated the essential features that controlled the prediction models. Findings We found that the most important feature in all the models was the sentiment of the research article title followed by the author count. We observed that the tree-based models performed better than other classification models, with Random Forest achieving 89% accuracy for binary classification and 73% accuracy for three-label classification. Research limitations In this research, we used state-of-the-art sentiment analysis libraries. However, these libraries might vary at times in their sentiment prediction behavior. Tweet sentiment may be influenced by a multitude of circumstances and is not always immediately tied to the paper's details. In the future, we intend to broaden the scope of our research by employing word2vec models. Practical implications Many studies have focused on understanding the impact of science on scientists or how science communicators can improve their outcomes. Research in this area has relied on fewer and more limited measures, such as citations and user studies with small datasets. There is currently a critical need to find novel methods to quantify and evaluate the broader impact of research. This study will help scientists better comprehend the emotional impact of their work. Additionally, the value of understanding the public's interest and reactions helps science communicators identify effective ways to engage with the public and build positive connections between scientific communities and the public. Originality/value This study will extend work on public engagement with science, sociology of science, and computational social science. It will enable researchers to identify areas in which there is a gap between public and expert understanding and provide strategies by which this gap can be bridged.","PeriodicalId":92237,"journal":{"name":"Journal of data and information science (Warsaw, Poland)","volume":"7 1","pages":"97 - 124"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of data and information science (Warsaw, Poland)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2022-0003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Abstract Purpose Social media users share their ideas, thoughts, and emotions with other users. However, it is not clear how online users would respond to new research outcomes. This study aims to predict the nature of the emotions expressed by Twitter users toward scientific publications. Additionally, we investigate what features of the research articles help in such prediction. Identifying the sentiments of research articles on social media will help scientists gauge a new societal impact of their research articles. Design/methodology/approach Several tools are used for sentiment analysis, so we applied five sentiment analysis tools to check which are suitable for capturing a tweet's sentiment value and decided to use NLTK VADER and TextBlob. We segregated the sentiment value into negative, positive, and neutral. We measure the mean and median of tweets’ sentiment value for research articles with more than one tweet. We next built machine learning models to predict the sentiments of tweets related to scientific publications and investigated the essential features that controlled the prediction models. Findings We found that the most important feature in all the models was the sentiment of the research article title followed by the author count. We observed that the tree-based models performed better than other classification models, with Random Forest achieving 89% accuracy for binary classification and 73% accuracy for three-label classification. Research limitations In this research, we used state-of-the-art sentiment analysis libraries. However, these libraries might vary at times in their sentiment prediction behavior. Tweet sentiment may be influenced by a multitude of circumstances and is not always immediately tied to the paper's details. In the future, we intend to broaden the scope of our research by employing word2vec models. Practical implications Many studies have focused on understanding the impact of science on scientists or how science communicators can improve their outcomes. Research in this area has relied on fewer and more limited measures, such as citations and user studies with small datasets. There is currently a critical need to find novel methods to quantify and evaluate the broader impact of research. This study will help scientists better comprehend the emotional impact of their work. Additionally, the value of understanding the public's interest and reactions helps science communicators identify effective ways to engage with the public and build positive connections between scientific communities and the public. Originality/value This study will extend work on public engagement with science, sociology of science, and computational social science. It will enable researchers to identify areas in which there is a gap between public and expert understanding and provide strategies by which this gap can be bridged.
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
通过推特情绪预测公众对科学研究的反应
社交媒体用户与其他用户分享他们的想法、想法和情感。然而,尚不清楚在线用户将如何回应新的研究成果。这项研究旨在预测Twitter用户对科学出版物表达的情感的性质。此外,我们还调查了研究文章的哪些特征有助于这种预测。识别社交媒体上研究文章的情绪将有助于科学家评估他们的研究文章的新的社会影响。设计/方法/方法情感分析使用了几种工具,因此我们应用了五种情感分析工具来检查哪些工具适合捕获tweet的情感价值,并决定使用NLTK VADER和TextBlob。我们将情绪值分为消极、积极和中性。我们测量具有多个tweet的研究文章的tweet的情感值的平均值和中位数。接下来,我们建立了机器学习模型来预测与科学出版物相关的推文的情绪,并研究了控制预测模型的基本特征。我们发现,所有模型中最重要的特征是研究文章标题的情感,其次是作者数量。我们观察到基于树的模型比其他分类模型表现得更好,随机森林在二元分类中达到89%的准确率,在三标签分类中达到73%的准确率。在本研究中,我们使用了最先进的情感分析库。然而,这些库的情绪预测行为有时可能会有所不同。推特上的情绪可能受到多种情况的影响,并不总是与报纸的细节直接相关。在未来,我们打算通过使用word2vec模型来扩大我们的研究范围。许多研究的重点是理解科学对科学家的影响,或者科学传播者如何改善他们的成果。这一领域的研究依赖于更少和更有限的措施,例如使用小数据集的引用和用户研究。目前迫切需要找到新的方法来量化和评估研究的更广泛影响。这项研究将帮助科学家更好地理解他们的工作对情感的影响。此外,了解公众的兴趣和反应的价值有助于科学传播者确定与公众接触的有效方式,并在科学界和公众之间建立积极的联系。原创性/价值本研究将扩展公众参与科学、科学社会学和计算社会科学的工作。它将使研究人员能够确定在公众和专家的理解之间存在差距的领域,并提供可以弥补这一差距的策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Editorial board publication strategy and acceptance rates in Turkish national journals Multimodal sentiment analysis for social media contents during public emergencies Perspectives from a publishing ethics and research integrity team for required improvements Build neural network models to identify and correct news headlines exaggerating obesity-related scientific findings An author credit allocation method with improved distinguishability and robustness
×
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