It's Not in Their Tweets: Modeling Topical Expertise of Twitter Users

Claudia Wagner, Q. Liao, P. Pirolli, Les Nelson, M. Strohmaier
{"title":"It's Not in Their Tweets: Modeling Topical Expertise of Twitter Users","authors":"Claudia Wagner, Q. Liao, P. Pirolli, Les Nelson, M. Strohmaier","doi":"10.1109/SocialCom-PASSAT.2012.30","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"One of the key challenges for users of social media is judging the topical expertise of other users in order to select trustful information sources about specific topics and to judge credibility of content produced by others. In this paper, we explore the usefulness of different types of user-related data for making sense about the topical expertise of Twitter users. Types of user-related data include messages a user authored or re-published, biographical information a user published on his/her profile page and information about user lists to which a user belongs. We conducted a user study that explores how useful different types of data are for informing human's expertise judgements. We then used topic modeling based on different types of data to build and assess computational expertise models of Twitter users. We use We follow directories as a proxy measurement for perceived expertise in this assessment. Our findings show that different types of user-related data indeed differ substantially in their ability to inform computational expertise models and humans's expertise judgements. Tweets and retweets - which are often used in literature for gauging the expertise area of users - are surprisingly useless for inferring the expertise topics of their authors and are outperformed by other types of user-related data such as information about users' list memberships. Our results have implications for algorithms, user interfaces and methods that focus on capturing expertise of social media users.","PeriodicalId":129526,"journal":{"name":"2012 International Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust and 2012 International Confernece on Social Computing","volume":"67 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"76","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2012 International Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust and 2012 International Confernece on Social Computing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/SocialCom-PASSAT.2012.30","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 76

Abstract

One of the key challenges for users of social media is judging the topical expertise of other users in order to select trustful information sources about specific topics and to judge credibility of content produced by others. In this paper, we explore the usefulness of different types of user-related data for making sense about the topical expertise of Twitter users. Types of user-related data include messages a user authored or re-published, biographical information a user published on his/her profile page and information about user lists to which a user belongs. We conducted a user study that explores how useful different types of data are for informing human's expertise judgements. We then used topic modeling based on different types of data to build and assess computational expertise models of Twitter users. We use We follow directories as a proxy measurement for perceived expertise in this assessment. Our findings show that different types of user-related data indeed differ substantially in their ability to inform computational expertise models and humans's expertise judgements. Tweets and retweets - which are often used in literature for gauging the expertise area of users - are surprisingly useless for inferring the expertise topics of their authors and are outperformed by other types of user-related data such as information about users' list memberships. Our results have implications for algorithms, user interfaces and methods that focus on capturing expertise of social media users.
它不在他们的推文中:推特用户的主题专业知识建模
社交媒体用户面临的主要挑战之一是判断其他用户的专题专业知识,以便选择有关特定主题的可信信息来源,并判断他人制作的内容的可信度。在本文中,我们探讨了不同类型的用户相关数据对于理解Twitter用户的主题专业知识的有用性。与用户相关的数据类型包括用户撰写或重新发布的消息、用户在其个人资料页面上发布的个人信息以及有关用户所属的用户列表的信息。我们进行了一项用户研究,探索不同类型的数据对告知人类专业知识判断的有用程度。然后,我们使用基于不同类型数据的主题建模来构建和评估Twitter用户的计算专业知识模型。在此评估中,我们使用“我们遵循目录”作为感知专业知识的代理度量。我们的研究结果表明,不同类型的用户相关数据在为计算专业知识模型和人类专业知识判断提供信息的能力方面确实存在很大差异。Tweets和retwets——在文献中经常被用来衡量用户的专业领域——在推断作者的专业主题时却令人惊讶地毫无用处,并且被其他类型的用户相关数据(如关于用户列表成员的信息)优于。我们的研究结果对算法、用户界面和专注于获取社交媒体用户专业知识的方法具有启示意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信