Deep twitter diving: Exploring topical groups in microblogs at scale

Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 197-210

  Bhattacharya, Parantapa ^a,b   Ghosh, Saptarshi ^b,c   Kulshrestha, Juhi ^b   Mondal, Mainack ^b   Zafar, Muhammad Bilal ^b   Ganguly, Niloy ^a   Gummadi, Krishna P ^b  

^a INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (India)

^b MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR SOFTWARE SYSTEMS   (Germany)

^c INDIAN INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (India)

Author keywords

Identity based groups; Seekers of topical information; Topical experts; Topical groups; Twitter

Indexed keywords

ASTROPHYSICS; COMPUTER SUPPORTED COOPERATIVE WORK; INTERACTIVE COMPUTER SYSTEMS; SOCIAL NETWORKING (ONLINE);

IDENTITY-BASED; SEEKERS OF TOPICAL INFORMATION; TOPICAL EXPERTS; TOPICAL GROUPS; TWITTER;

GROUP THEORY;

EID: 84899013434     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/2531602.2531636     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (31)

1. Twitter Statistics, May 2013. http://www.statisticbrain. com/twitter-statistics/ (Accessed October 15, 2013).
2. An, J., Cha, M., Gummadi, K., and Crowcroft, J. Media landscape in Twitter: A world of new conventions and political diversity. In Proc. AAAI ICWSM (2011).
3. Ardon, S., Bagchi, A., Mahanti, A., et al. Spatio-temporal analysis of topic popularity in Twitter. arXiv:1111.2904v2 [cs.SI] (2011).
4. Blanchard, A. L., and Markus, M. L. The experienced "sense" of a virtual community: characteristics and processes. SIGMIS Database 35, 1 (Feb. 2004), 64-79.
5. Blondel, V. D., Guillaume, J.-L., Lambiotte, R., and Lefebvre, E. Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 18 (October 2008).
6. Chen, J., Nairn, R., Nelson, L., Bernstein, M., and Chi, E. Short and tweet: experiments on recommending content from information streams. In Proc. ACM CHI (2010).
7. Choudhury, M. D., Counts, S., and Czerwinski, M. Find Me the Right Contenti Diversity-Based Sampling of Social Media Spaces for Topic-Centric Search. In Proc. AAAI ICWSM (2011).
8. Cox, A.What are communities of practice? a comparative review of four seminal works. Journal of Information Science 31, 6 (2005), 527-540.
9. De Choudhury, M., Diakopoulos, N., and Naaman, M. Unfolding the event landscape on twitter: classification and exploration of user categories. In Proc. ACM CSCW (2012).
10. Easley, D., and Kleinberg, J. Networks, Crowds, and Markets: Reasoning About a Highly Connected World. Cambridge University Press, 2010.
11. Fortunato, S. Community detection in graphs. Physics Reports 486, 3-5 (2010), 75-174.
12. Ghosh, S., Sharma, N., Benevenuto, F., Ganguly, N., and Gummadi, K. Cognos: crowdsourcing search for topic experts in microblogs. In Proc. ACM SIGIR (2012).
13. Grabowicz, P. A., Aiello, L. M., Eguiluz, V. M., and Jaimes, A. Distinguishing topical and social groups based on common identity and bond theory. In Proc. ACM WSDM (2013).
14. Java, A., Song, X., Finin, T., and Tseng, B. Why We Twitter: Understanding Microblogging Usage and Communities. In Proc. WEBKDD / SNA-KDD Workshop (2007).
15. Jones, K. S. Automatic keyword classification for information retrieval. Butterworth, 1971.
16. Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., and Moon, S. What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? In Proc. ACM WWW (2010).
17. Lerman, K., and Ghosh, R. Information contagion: An empirical study of the spread of news on Digg and Twitter social networks. In Proc. AAAI ICWSM (2010).
18. Leskovec, J., Lang, K. J., and Mahoney, M. Empirical comparison of algorithms for network community detection. In Proc. ACMWWW(2010).
19. Lin, C. X., Mei, Q., Han, J., Jiang, Y., and Danilevsky, M. The joint inference of topic diffusion and evolution in social communities. In Proc. IEEE ICDM (2011).
20. Twitter help center: How to use twitter lists. http://tinyurl. com/lists-howtouse (Accessed October 15, 2013).
21. McMillan, D., and Chavis, D. Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology 14, 1 (1986), 6-23.
22. Prentice, D. A., Miller, D. T., and Lightdale, J. R. Asymmetries in attachments to groups and to their members: Distinguishing between common-identity and common-bond groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 20, 5 (1994), 484-493.
23. Ren, Y., Kraut, R., and Kiesler, S. Applying Common Identity and Bond Theory to Design of Online Communities. Organization Studies 28, 3 (2007), 377-408.
24. Sassenberg, K. Common bond and common identity groups on the Internet: Attachment and normative behavior in on-topic and off-topic chats. Group Dynamics Theory Research And Practice 6, 1 (2002), 27-37.
25. Sharma, N., Ghosh, S., Benevenuto, F., Ganguly, N., and Gummadi, K. Inferring Who-is-Who in the Twitter Social Network. In Proc. WOSN Workshop (2012).
26. Talbot, D. How Google Ranks Tweets, Jan 2010. http://www. technologyreview.in/web/24353/ (Accessed October 15, 2013).
27. Wagner, C., Liao, V., Pirolli, P., Nelson, L., and Strohmaier, M. It's not in their tweets: Modeling topical expertise of twitter users. In Proc. ASE/IEEE SocialCom (2012).
28. Wang, L., Lou, T., Tang, J., and Hopcroft, J. E. Detecting community kernels in large social networks. In Proc. IEEE ICDM (2011).
29. Wenger, E. Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA, 1999.
30. Wu, S., Hofman, J. M., Mason, W. A., and Watts, D. J. Who says what to whom on Twitter. In Proc. ACM WWW (2011).
31. Yang, J., and Leskovec, J. Defining and evaluating network communities based on ground-truth. In Proc. MDS Workshop (2012).