Characterizing and modeling an electoral campaign in the context of Twitter: 2011 Spanish Presidential election as a case study

Chaos

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 2012, Pages

  Borondo, J ^a   Morales, A J ^a   Losada, J C ^a   Benito, R M ^a  

^a UNIVERSIDAD POLITÉCNICA DE MADRID   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; GOVERNMENT; HUMAN; HUMAN RELATION; INTERNET; POLITICS; SOCIAL SUPPORT; SPAIN; THEORETICAL MODEL; TIME;

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; HUMANS; INTERNET; INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; POLITICS; SOCIAL SUPPORT; SPAIN; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 84863500861     PISSN: 10541500     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1063/1.4729139     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Honeycutt C. Herring S.C. HICSS 2009, 1-10. (IEEE Computer Society)
2. Romero D.M. Galuba W. Asur S. Huberman B.A. Influence and passivity in social media. WWW'11 2010.
3. Jansen B.J. Zhang M. Sobel K. Chowdury A. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 2009, 60:2169. 10.1002/asi.21149
4. 2011, See for Pew Research Center, Global Digital Communication: Texting, Social Networking Popular Worldwide.
5. Tumasjan A. Sprenger T.O. Sandner P.G. Welpe I.M. Predicting elections with Twitter: What 140 characters reveal about political sentiment. ICWSM 2010, (AAAI).
6. Conover M. Political polarization on Twitter. ICWSM 2011, (AAAI).
7. Livne A. Simmons M.P. Adar E. Adamic L.A. The party is over here: Structure and content in the 2010 election. ICWSM 2011, (AAAI).
8. Bocaletti S. Latora V. Moreno Y. Chavez M. Hwang D.-U. Phys. Rep. 2006, 424:175. 10.1016/j.physrep.2005.10.009
9. Albert R. Barabasi A.-L. Rev. Mod. Phys. 2002, 74:47-97. 10.1103/RevModPhys.74.47
10. Newman M.E. J. SIAM Rev. 2003, 45(2):167-256. 10.1137/S003614450342480.
11. Santiago A. Benito R.M. Europhys. Lett. 2008, 82:58004. 10.1209/0295-5075/82/58004
12. Kwak H. Lee C. Park H. Moon S. WWW'10 2010, 591-600. (ACM)
13. Boyd D. Golder S. Lotan G. HICSS 2010, 1-10. (IEEE Computer Society)
14. 2009, See for Pear analytics-Twitter study.
15. Newman M.E. J. Contemp. Phys. 2005, 46:323. 10.1080/00107510500052444.
16. Koop R. Jansen H.J. Social Sci. Comput. Rev. 2009, 27:155. 10.1177/0894439308326297
17. Barrat A. Barthlemy M. Pastor-Satorras R. Vespignani A. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2004, 101:3747. 10.1073/pnas.0400087101
18. Newman M.E. J. Phys. Rev. E 2003, 67:026126. 10.1103/PhysRevE.67.026126.
19. Foster J.G. Foster D.V. Grassberger P. Paczuski M. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2010, 107:10815. 10.1073/pnas.0912671107
20. Wojciech Galuba K.A. Chakraborty D. Despotovic Z. Outtweeting the Twitterers-Predicting information cascades in microblogs. Microblogs 3rd Workshop on Online Social Networks, WOSN 2010
21. Hu H.-B. Wang X.-F. Europhys. Lett. 2009, 86:18003. 10.1209/0295-5075/86/18003
22. Rosvall M. Bergstrom C.T. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2008, 105:1118. 10.1073/pnas.0706851105
23. Yoon H.Y. Park H.W. 9th International Triple Helix Conference 2011, and Social media information flow and public representation: A case of S. Korean politicians on Twitter, in.
24. Barabasi A.-L. Albert R. Jeong H. Physica A 1999, 272:173. 10.1016/S0378-4371(99)00291-5