Classifying Twitter favorites: Like, bookmark, or Thanks?

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 67, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 17-25

  Gorrell, Genevieve ^a   Bontcheva, Kalina ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

information overload; Internet; machine learning

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; INTERNET; LEARNING SYSTEMS;

CLASSIFICATION APPROACH; HUMAN JUDGMENTS; INFORMATION OVERLOADS; INFORMATION-ACCESS APPLICATIONS; MANUAL ANALYSIS; PERSONALIZATIONS; SELF-PROMOTIONS; USAGE PATTERNS;

SOCIAL NETWORKING (ONLINE);

CLASSIFICATION; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; INTERNET; MACHINE LEARNING;

EID: 84962343080     PISSN: 23301635     EISSN: 23301643     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.23352     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Abel, F., Gao, Q., Houben, G.J., & Tao, K. (2011a). Semantic enrichment of twitter posts for user profile construction on the social web. In Antoniou, Grobelnik, Simperl, Parsia, Plexousakis, Leenheer and Pan (Eds.), The semanic web: Research and applications (pp. 375–389). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
2. Abel, F., Gao, Q., Houben, G.J., & Tao, K. (2011b). Analyzing temporal dynamics in twitter profiles for personalized recommendations in the social web. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Web Science Conference (pp. 2–10), Koblenz, Germany. New York: ACM.
3. Angeletou, S., Rowe, M., & Alani, H. (2011). Modelling and analysis of user behaviour in online communities. In Proceedings of the 10th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC) 2011 (pp. 35–50), Bonn, Germany. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
4. Blau, I., & Neuthal, T. (2012). Tweeting educational technology: A tale of professional community in practice. International Journal of Cyber Society and Education, 5(1), 75–80.
5. Bontcheva, K., Cunningham, H., Roberts, I., & Tablan, V. (2010). Web-based collaborative corpus annotation: Requirements and a framework implementation. In Witte, Cunningham, Patrick, Beisswanger, Buyko, Hahn, Verspoor and Coden (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop New Challenges for NLP Frameworks (pp. 20–27). Valletta, Malta: ELRA.
6. Bontcheva, K., Gorrell, G., & Wessels, B. (2013b). Social Media and Information Overload: Survey Results. arXiv:1306.0813 [cs.SI] Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.0813
7. Chen, J., Nairn, R., Nelson, L., Bernstein, M., & Chi, E. (2010). Short and tweet: experiments on recommending content from information streams. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1185–1194). New York: ACM.
8. Chen, J., Nairn, R., & Chi, E. (2011). Speak little and well: recommending conversations in online social streams. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 217–226). New York: ACM.
9. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46.
10. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (Eds.). (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
11. Cristianini, N., & Shawe-Taylor, J. (2000). An introduction to support vector machines. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
12. Cunningham, H., Maynard, D., Bontcheva, K., Tablan, V., Aswani, N., Roberts, I., et al. (2011). Text processing with GATE (Version 6). Sheffield, UK: University of Sheffield.
13. Derczynski, L., Maynard, D., Aswani, N., & Bontcheva, K. (2013). Microblog-genre noise and impact on semantic annotation accuracy. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media (pp. 21–30). New York: ACM.
14. Ehrlich, K., & Shami, N.S. (2010). Microblogging inside and outside the workplace. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM) (pp. 42–49), Washington, DC. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
15. Fleiss, J.L. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions (2nd ed., pp. 212–225). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
16. Harabagiu, S.M., & Hickl, A. (2011). Relevance Modeling for Microblog Summarization. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM) (pp. 514–517), Barcelona, Spain. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
17. Huberman, B.A., Romero, D.M., & Wu, F. (2008). Social networks that matter: Twitter under the microscope. arXiv preprint arXiv:0812.1045.
18. Kwak, H., Chun, H., & Moon, S. (2011). Fragile online relationship: a first look at unfollow dynamics in twitter. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1091–1100). New York: ACM.
19. Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., & Moon, S. (2010). What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web (pp. 591–600). New York: ACM.
20. Landis, J.R., & Koch, G.G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.
21. Li, Y., & Shawe-Taylor, J. (2003). The SVM with uneven margins and Chinese document categorization. In Proceedings of The 17th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation (PACLIC17) (pp. 216–227). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22. Linguistic Data Consortium (2005). Annotation Guidelines for Entity Detection and Tracking (EDT). Retrieved from http://catalog.ldc.upenn.edu/docs/LDC2005T09/guidelines/EnglishEDTV4-2-6.PDF
23. Naaman, M., Boase, J., & Lai, C.H. (2010). Is it really about me?: message content in social awareness streams. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 189–192). New York: ACM.
24. Prasad, R., Miltsakaki, E., Dinesh, N., Lee, A., Joshi, A., Robaldo, L., & Webber, B.L. (2007). The penn discourse treebank 2.0 annotation manual.
25. Ravikant, N., & Rifkin, A. (2010). “Why Twitter Is Massively Undervalued Compared To Facebook”. TechCrunch, 2010. Retrieved from http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/16/why-twitter-is-massively-undervalued-compared-to-facebook/
26. Rout, D., Bontcheva, K., & Hepple, M. (2013). Reliably evaluating summaries of twitter timelines. In Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Analyzing Microtext (pp. 64–71). Palo Alto, CA: AAAI Press.
27. Schreiner, T. (2013). New Compete study: Primary mobile users on Twitter. 11 Feb 2013. Retrieved from https://blog.twitter.com/2013/new-compete-study-primary-mobile-users-on-twitter
28. Scott, W.A. (1955). Reliability of content analysis: The case of nominal scale coding. Public Opinion Quarterly, 19(3), 321–325.
29. Skeels, M.M., & Grudin, J. (2009). When social networks cross boundaries: A case study of workplace use of facebook and linkedin. In Proceedings of the ACM 2009 International Conference on Supporting Group Work (pp. 95–104). New York: ACM.
30. Stede, M., & Huang, C.-R. (2012). Interoperability and reusability: The science of annotation. Language Resources and Evaluation, 46(1), 91–94. doi: 10.1007/s10579-011-9164-x
31. Sysomos Inc (2010). Replies and Retweets on Twitter. Retrieved from https://www.sysomos.com/insidetwitter/engagement/
32. Welkowitz, J., Cohen, B.H., & Ewen, R.B. (2006). Introductory statistics for the behavioral sciences. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
33. Yan, R., Lapata, M., & Li, X. (2012). Tweet recommendation with graph co-ranking. In Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Long Papers (Vol. 1, pp. 516–525). Jeju, Korea: Association for Computational Linguistics.
34. Zhao, D., & Rosson, M.B. (2009). How and why people Twitter: The role that micro-blogging plays in informal communication at work. In Proceedings of the ACM 2009 International Conference on Supporting Group Work (pp. 243–252). New York: ACM.