Identifying and analyzing researchers on twitter

WebSci 2014 - Proceedings of the 2014 ACM Web Science Conference

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 23-32

  Hadgu, Asmelash Teka ^a   Jäschke, Robert ^a  

^a L3S RESEARCH CENTER   (Germany)

Author keywords

Classification; Computer science; Social network; Twitter

Indexed keywords

CLASSIFICATION (OF INFORMATION); COMPUTER SCIENCE; INFORMATION FILTERING; RESEARCH;

COMMUNICATION PLATFORMS; RESOURCE SHARING; SEED SET; TWITTER;

SOCIAL NETWORKING (ONLINE);

EID: 84904512264     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/2615569.2615676     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (17)

1. E. Bakshy, J. M. Hofman, W. A. Mason, and D. J. Watts. Everyone's an in uencer: quantifying in uence on Twitter. In Proc. 4th Int. Conf. On Web Search and Data Mining, WSDM '11, pages 65-74. ACM, 2011.
2. M. Cha, H. Haddadi, F. Benevenuto, and K. P. Gummadi. Measuring user in uence in Twitter: The million follower fallacy. In Proc. 4th Int. Conf. On Weblogs and Social Media, pages 10-17. AAAI, 2010.
3. M. Conover, J. Ratkiewicz, M. Francisco, B. Goñcalves, A. Flammini, and F. Menczer. Political polarization on Twitter. In Proc. 5th Int. Conf. On Weblogs and Social Media, pages 89-96. AAAI, 2011.
4. G. Eysenbach. Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on Twitter and correlation with 22http://www.leibniz-science20.de/ traditional metrics of scientific impact. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13(4), 2011.
5. R. E. Goldstein, P. B. Warren, and R. C. Ball. Shape of a ponytail and the statistical physics of hair fiber bundles. Phys. Rev. Lett., 108(7):078101, Feb. 2012.
6. S. D. Gollapalli, C. Caragea, P. Mitra, and C. L. Giles. Researcher homepage classification using unlabeled data. In Proc. 22nd Int. Conf. On World Wide Web, WWW '13, pages 471-482. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, 2013.
7. M. Hilbert and P. López. The world's technological capacity to store, communicate, and compute information. Science, 332(6025):60-65, 2011.
8. H. Kwak, C. Lee, H. Park, and S. Moon. What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? In Proc. Int. Conf. On World Wide Web, pages 591-600, 2010.
9. J. Letierce, A. Passant, J. Breslin, and S. Decker. Understanding how Twitter is used to widely spread scientific messages. In Proc. Web Science Conf., 2010.
10. M. Ley. DBLP: some lessons learned. Proc. VLDB Endow., 2(2):1493-1500, Aug. 2009.
11. M. Pennacchiotti and A.-M. Popescu. Democrats, republicans and starbucks auficionados: user classification in Twitter. In Proc. Int. Conf. On Knowl. Discovery and Data Mining, pages 430-438, 2011.
12. J. Priem and K. L. Costello. How and why scholars cite on Twitter. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 47(1):1-4, 2010.
13. J. Priem and B. Hemminger. Scientometrics 2.0: New metrics of scholarly impact on the social web. First Monday, 15(7), 2010.
14. D. Rao, D. Yarowsky, A. Shreevats, and M. Gupta. Classifying latent user attributes in Twitter. In Proc. 2nd Int. Workshop on Search and Mining User-Generated Contents, pages 37-44. ACM, 2010.
15. I. Weber, V. R. K. Garimella, and A. Teka. Political hashtag trends. In Proc. European Conf. On Information Retrieval Research, pages 857-860, 2013.
16. K. Weller, E. Dröge, and C. Puschmann. Citation analysis in Twitter: Approaches for defining and measuring information ows within tweets during scientific conferences. In Proc. ESWC 2011 Workshop on 'Making Sense of Microposts', pages 1-12, 2011.
17. J. Wu, P. Teregowda, J. P. F. Ramrez, P. Mitra, S. Zheng, and C. L. Giles. The evolution of a crawling strategy for an academic document search engine: whitelists and blacklists. In Proc. 3rd Annual Web Science Conf., pages 340-343. ACM, 2012.