Twitter as research data Tools, costs, skill sets, and lessons learned.

Q2 Social Sciences Politics and the Life Sciences Pub Date : 2023-03-01 DOI:10.1017/pls.2021.19
Kaiping Chen, Zening Duan, Sijia Yang
{"title":"Twitter as research data <i>Tools, costs, skill sets, and lessons learned</i>.","authors":"Kaiping Chen,&nbsp;Zening Duan,&nbsp;Sijia Yang","doi":"10.1017/pls.2021.19","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Scholars increasingly use Twitter data to study the life sciences and politics. However, Twitter data collection tools often pose challenges for scholars who are unfamiliar with their operation. Equally important, although many tools indicate that they offer representative samples of the full Twitter archive, little is known about whether the samples are indeed representative of the targeted population of tweets. This article evaluates such tools in terms of costs, training, and data quality as a means to introduce Twitter data as a research tool. Further, using an analysis of COVID-19 and moral foundations theory as an example, we compared the distributions of moral discussions from two commonly used tools for accessing Twitter data (Twitter's standard APIs and third-party access) to the ground truth, the Twitter full archive. Our results highlight the importance of assessing the comparability of data sources to improve confidence in findings based on Twitter data. We also review the major new features of Twitter's API version 2.</p>","PeriodicalId":35901,"journal":{"name":"Politics and the Life Sciences","volume":"41 1","pages":"114-130"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politics and the Life Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/pls.2021.19","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

Scholars increasingly use Twitter data to study the life sciences and politics. However, Twitter data collection tools often pose challenges for scholars who are unfamiliar with their operation. Equally important, although many tools indicate that they offer representative samples of the full Twitter archive, little is known about whether the samples are indeed representative of the targeted population of tweets. This article evaluates such tools in terms of costs, training, and data quality as a means to introduce Twitter data as a research tool. Further, using an analysis of COVID-19 and moral foundations theory as an example, we compared the distributions of moral discussions from two commonly used tools for accessing Twitter data (Twitter's standard APIs and third-party access) to the ground truth, the Twitter full archive. Our results highlight the importance of assessing the comparability of data sources to improve confidence in findings based on Twitter data. We also review the major new features of Twitter's API version 2.

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
Twitter作为研究数据工具、成本、技能和经验教训。
学者们越来越多地使用Twitter数据来研究生命科学和政治。然而,Twitter的数据收集工具往往会给不熟悉其操作的学者带来挑战。同样重要的是,尽管许多工具表明它们提供了完整Twitter存档的代表性样本,但很少有人知道这些样本是否确实代表了目标tweet人群。本文从成本、培训和数据质量方面对这些工具进行了评估,以此作为将Twitter数据引入研究工具的一种手段。此外,以COVID-19分析和道德基础理论为例,我们比较了两种常用的Twitter数据访问工具(Twitter的标准api和第三方访问)与真实情况(Twitter完整档案)的道德讨论分布。我们的研究结果强调了评估数据源的可比性对于提高基于Twitter数据的研究结果的信心的重要性。我们还回顾了Twitter API版本2的主要新特性。
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
Politics and the Life Sciences
Politics and the Life Sciences Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: POLITICS AND THE LIFE SCIENCES is an interdisciplinary peer-reviewed journal with a global audience. PLS is owned and published by the ASSOCIATION FOR POLITICS AND THE LIFE SCIENCES, the APLS, which is both an American Political Science Association (APSA) Related Group and an American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) Member Society. The PLS topic range is exceptionally broad: evolutionary and laboratory insights into political behavior, including political violence, from group conflict to war, terrorism, and torture; political analysis of life-sciences research, health policy, environmental policy, and biosecurity policy; and philosophical analysis of life-sciences problems, such as bioethical controversies.
期刊最新文献
The effect of acute stress response on conspiracy theory beliefs. Strategic policy options to improve quality and productivity of biomedical research. BWC confidence-building measures: Increasing BWC assurance through transparency and information sharing. A leader I can(not) trust: understanding the path from epistemic trust to political leader choices via dogmatism. Evolutionary biology as a frontier for research on misinformation.
×
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