特朗普越多越好?

Data Lives Pub Date : 2021-02-03 DOI:10.2307/j.ctv1c9hmnq.14
Rob Kitchin
{"title":"特朗普越多越好?","authors":"Rob Kitchin","doi":"10.2307/j.ctv1c9hmnq.14","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter looks at an argument between two researchers concerning the epistemology, methodology, and ethics of data science versus traditional science in studying fertility. One of the researchers questions the other's use of Twitter data to examine fertility. The other researcher's defence is that Twitter data can be used to calculate a proxy fertility rate, comparing rates of women with and without children, looking at family changes, mapping geographic patterns of the tweets, but they were only partially using the data for this. They were mainly interested in soft measures concerning fertility, such as attitudes, values, feelings, and intentions. And about related issues such as family planning, abortion, and overpopulation. In particular, they can get a sense of sentiment: whether people are positive or negative about parenthood, whether they are tired, overjoyed, or depressed. However, the first researcher was not convinced because their approach to understanding fertility starts from a very different place — one driven by theory and hypotheses.","PeriodicalId":446623,"journal":{"name":"Data Lives","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"So More Trumps Better?\",\"authors\":\"Rob Kitchin\",\"doi\":\"10.2307/j.ctv1c9hmnq.14\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter looks at an argument between two researchers concerning the epistemology, methodology, and ethics of data science versus traditional science in studying fertility. One of the researchers questions the other's use of Twitter data to examine fertility. The other researcher's defence is that Twitter data can be used to calculate a proxy fertility rate, comparing rates of women with and without children, looking at family changes, mapping geographic patterns of the tweets, but they were only partially using the data for this. They were mainly interested in soft measures concerning fertility, such as attitudes, values, feelings, and intentions. And about related issues such as family planning, abortion, and overpopulation. In particular, they can get a sense of sentiment: whether people are positive or negative about parenthood, whether they are tired, overjoyed, or depressed. However, the first researcher was not convinced because their approach to understanding fertility starts from a very different place — one driven by theory and hypotheses.\",\"PeriodicalId\":446623,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Data Lives\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-02-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Data Lives\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1c9hmnq.14\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Data Lives","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1c9hmnq.14","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本章着眼于两位研究人员之间关于数据科学与传统科学在研究生育方面的认识论、方法论和伦理的争论。其中一名研究人员质疑另一名使用Twitter数据来检查生育能力。另一位研究人员的辩护是,推特数据可以用来计算代理生育率,比较有孩子和没有孩子的妇女的生育率,观察家庭变化,绘制推特的地理模式,但他们只是部分地使用了这些数据。他们主要对有关生育的软指标感兴趣,如态度、价值观、感情和意图。以及计划生育、堕胎和人口过剩等相关问题。特别是,他们可以得到一种情绪:人们对为人父母是积极的还是消极的,他们是疲惫的,欣喜若狂的,还是沮丧的。然而,第一位研究人员并不相信,因为他们理解生育的方法是从一个非常不同的地方开始的——一个由理论和假设驱动的地方。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
So More Trumps Better?
This chapter looks at an argument between two researchers concerning the epistemology, methodology, and ethics of data science versus traditional science in studying fertility. One of the researchers questions the other's use of Twitter data to examine fertility. The other researcher's defence is that Twitter data can be used to calculate a proxy fertility rate, comparing rates of women with and without children, looking at family changes, mapping geographic patterns of the tweets, but they were only partially using the data for this. They were mainly interested in soft measures concerning fertility, such as attitudes, values, feelings, and intentions. And about related issues such as family planning, abortion, and overpopulation. In particular, they can get a sense of sentiment: whether people are positive or negative about parenthood, whether they are tired, overjoyed, or depressed. However, the first researcher was not convinced because their approach to understanding fertility starts from a very different place — one driven by theory and hypotheses.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信