Microblogging and nanotweets: Nanotechnology on Twitter

Public Understanding of Science

Volumn 22, Issue 7, 2013, Pages 832-849

  Veltri, Giuseppe Alessandro ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

latent semantic analysis; nanotechnology; opinion mining; social web; Twitter

Indexed keywords

EID: 84884391023     PISSN: 09636625     EISSN: 13616609     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0963662512463510     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Albert R,Jeong H,Barabasi A.Internet: Diameter of the World-Wide Web.Nature. 1999;401:130-131.
2. Anderson A,Allan S,Petersen A,Wilkinson A.The framing of nanotechnology in the British newspaper press.Science Communication. 2005;27:200-220.
3. Bader R.How science news sections influence newspaper science coverage: A case study.Journalism Quarterly. 1990;67 (1): 88-96.
4. Bakshy E,Hofman JM,Mason WA,Watts DJ.Everyone's an influencer: Quantifying influence on Twitter. WSDM '11: Proceedings of the Fourth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining; 2011Hong Kong; 2011. 65.
5. Boyd D, Golder S and Lotan G (2010) Tweet, tweet, retweet: Conversational aspects of retweeting on Twitter. HICSS-43, IEEE, Kauai, HI, 6 January.
6. Bucchi MScience in Society: An Introduction to Social Studies of Science. London: Routledge; 2002:.
7. Byrne PF,Namuth DM,Harrington J,Ward SM,Lee DJ,Hain P.Increasing public understanding of transgenic crops through the World Wide Web.Public Understanding of Science. 2002;11 (3): 293-304.
8. Chew C,Eysenbach G.Pandemics in the age of Twitter: Content analysis of tweets during the 2009 H1N1 outbreak.PLoS ONE. 2010;5 (11): e14118.
9. Delborne JA,Anderson AA,Kleinman DL,Colin M,Powell M.Virtual deliberation? Prospects and challenges for integrating the Internet in consensus conferences.Public Understanding of Science. 2011;20 (3): 367-384.
10. Donk A,Metag J,Kohring M,Marcinkowski F.Framing emerging technologies: Risk perceptions of nanotechnology in the German press.Science Communication. 2012;34 (1): 5-29.
11. Dunwoody S,Scott BT.Scientists as mass media resources.Journalism Quarterly. 1982;59:52-59.
12. Esuli A,Sebastiani F.SENTIWORDNET: A publicly available lexical resource for opinion mining. Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'06); 2006Genova, Italy; 2006. 417.
13. Eveland WP,Dunwoody S.Users and navigation patterns of a science World Wide Web site for the public.Public Understanding of Science. 1998;7 (4): 285-311.
14. Fahmy SS,Wanta W,Johnson TJ,Zhang J.The path to war: Exploring a second-level agenda-building analysis examining the relationship among the media, the public and the president.International Communication Gazette. 2011;73:322-342.
15. Friedman SMBad Tidings: Communication and Catastrophe. Walters LMWilkins LWalters T, ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1989:63-83.
16. Friedman SM,Egolf BP.Nanotechnology: Risks and the media.IEEE Technology and Society Magazine. 2005;24:5-11.
17. Gamson WA,Modigliani A.Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach.American Journal of Sociology. 1989;95:1-37.
18. Gaskell G,Bauer M,Durant JBiotechnology in the Public Sphere: A European Source Book. Durant JBauer MGaskell G, ed. London: Science Museum Press; 1998:3-15.
19. Gaskell G,Ten Eyck T,Jackson J,Veltri G.Imagining nanotechnology: Cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States.Public Understanding of Science. 2005;14 (1): 81-90.
20. Gerbner G,Gross L.Living with television: The violence profile.Journal of Communication. 1976;26 (2): 172-199.
21. Gopfert W.Scheduled science: TV coverage of science, technology, medicine and social science and programming policies in Britain and Germany.Public Understanding of Science. 1996;5 (4): 361-374.
22. Groboljsek B,Mali F.Daily newspapers' views on nanotechnology in Slovenia.Science Communication. 2012;34 (1): 30-56.
23. HamptonKGouletLSJa HerERainieL (2009) Social Isolation and New Technology. Pew Internet & American life Project. Available at: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1398/internet-mobile-phones-impact-american-social-networks.
24. Hanson VL.Amidst nanotechnology's molecular landscapes: The changing trope of subvisible worlds.Science Communication. 2012;34 (1): 57-83.
25. Hawn C.Take two aspirin and tweet me in the morning: How Twitter, Facebook, and other social media are reshaping health care.Health Affairs. 2009;28 (2): 361-368.
26. Herring SCThe International Handbook of Internet Research. Hunsinger JAllen MKlastrup L, ed. Berlin: Springer Verlag; 2010:233-249.
27. Hoijer B.Emotional anchoring and objectification in the media reporting on climate change.Public Understanding of Science. 2010;19 (6): 717-731.
28. Holliman R.Media coverage of cloning: A study of media content, production and reception.Public Understanding of Science. 2004;13 (2): 107-130.
29. Jain SH.Practicing medicine in the age of Facebook.New England Journal of Medicine. 2009;361 (7): 649-651.
30. Java A,Song X,Finin T,Tseng B.Why we twitter: Understanding microblogging usage and communities. Proceedings of the 9th WebKDD and 1st SNA-KDD 2007 Workshop on Web Mining and Social Network Analysis; 2007San Jose, CA; 2007. 56.
31. Jones RA.The boffin: A stereotype of scientists in post-war British films (1945-1970).Public Understanding of Science. 1997;6 (1): 31-48.
32. Kjærgaard RS.Making a small country count: Nanotechnology in Danish newspapers from 1996 to 2006.Public Understanding of Science. 2010;19:80-97.
33. Kjølberg KL.Representations of nanotechnology in the Norwegian newspapers: Implication for public participations.Nanoethics. 2009;3:61-72.
34. Landau J,Groscurth CR,Wright L,Condit CM.Visualizing nanotechnology: The impact of visual images on lay American audience associations with nanotechnology.Public Understanding of Science. 2008;18 (3): 325-337.
35. Lang GE,Lang KThe Battle for Public Opinion: The President, the Press, and the Polls during Watergate. New York: Columbia University Press; 1983:.
36. LeetaruKH (2011) Culturomics 2.0: Forecasting large-scale human behavior using global news media tone in time and space. First Monday16(9) 5September. Available at: http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/3663/3040.
37. Leon B.Science related information in European television: A study of prime-time news.Public Understanding of Science. 2008;17 (4): 443-460.
38. Lewenstein B,Gorss J,Radin J.The salience of small: Nanotechnology coverage in the American press, 1986-2004. Paper presented at the International Communication Association; 2005New York; 2005.
39. Lewis K,Kaufman J,Gonzalez M,Wimmer A,Christakis N.Tastes, ties, and time: A new social network dataset using Facebook.com.Social Networks. 2008;30 (4): 330-342.
40. Marwick AE,Boyd D.I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience.New Media & Society. 2011;13 (1): 114-133.
41. McCombs M,Ghanem SFraming Public Life: Perspectives on Media and our Understanding of the Social World. Reese SDGandy OHGrant AE, ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2001:67-81.
42. McCombs ME,Shaw DL.The evolution of agenda-setting research: Twenty-five years in the marketplace of ideas.Journal of Communication. 1993;43 (2): 58-67.
43. Moscovici SSocial Representations: Explorations in Social Psychology. Cambridge: Polity Press; 2000:.
44. Neidhardt F.The public as a communication system.Public Understanding of Science. 1993;2:339-350.
45. Nelkin D.Promotional metaphors and their popular appeal.Public Understanding of Science. 1994;3 (1): 25-31.
46. Ogden S.The language of agricultural biotechnology: Terminate or be terminated.Organization & Environment. 2001;14:336-340.
47. Pang B,Lee L.Opinion mining and sentiment analysis.Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval. 2008;2 (1/2): 1-135.
48. Pew Research Center (2010) Global Publics Embrace Social Networking. Available at: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1830/social-networking-computer-cell-phone-usage-around-the-world.
49. Roeser SEmotions and Risky Technologies. Delft: Springer; 2010:.
50. Rogers R,Marres N.Landscaping climate change: A mapping technique for understanding science and technology debates on the World Wide Web.Public Understanding of Science. 2000;9 (2): 141-163.
51. Scheufele DA,Lewenstein B.The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies.Journal of Nanoparticle Research. 2005;7:659-667.
52. Schummer J.Reading nano: The public interest in nanotechnology as reflected in purchase patterns of books.Public Understanding of Science. 2005;14 (2): 163-183.
53. Shirky CCognitive Surplus: Creativity and Generosity in a Connected Age. New York: Penguin Press; 2010:.
54. Triunfol ML.Dynamics of list-server discussion on genetically modified foods.Public Understanding of Science. 2004;13 (2): 155-175.
55. Veltri GA.Viva la nano-revolución! A semantic analysis of the Spanish national press.Science Communication. 2012;:.
56. Veltri GA,Suerdem A.Worldviews and discursive construction of GMO-related risk perceptions in Turkey.Public Understanding of Science. 2011;:.
57. WaldropMM (2008) Science 2.0: Great new tool or great risk?Scientific AmericanMay. Available at: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=science-2-point-0.
58. Waters RD,Burnett E,Lamm A,Lucas J.Engaging stakeholders through social networking: How non-profit organizations are using Facebook.Public Relations Review. 2009;35 (2): 102-106.
59. Weng L,Flammini A,Vespignani A,Menczer FScientific Reports. Article number; 2012:335.
60. Westling M.Expanding the public sphere: The impact of Facebook on political communication.Society. 2007;28:835-860.
61. Risky Business: Communicating Issues of Science and Risk, and Public Policy. Wilkins LPatterson P, ed. New York: Greenwood; 1991:.
62. Zappavigna M.Ambient affiliation: A linguistic perspective on Twitter.New Media & Society. 2011;13 (5): 788-806.