arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv 2402.04879cs.SI
收藏

构建全国Twitter用户随机样本的方法比较

Comparing Methods for Creating a National Random Sample of Twitter Users

Meysam Alizadeh, Darya Zare, Zeynab Samei, Mohammadamin Alizadeh, Mael Kubli, Mohammadhadi Aliahmadi, Sarvenaz Ebrahimi, Fabrizio Gilardi

AI总结:

针对构建一国Twitter用户随机样本缺乏方法性能对比的问题,本文实现四种常用采样方法并从多维度比较,发现1% Stream法构建代表性样本效果最优,同时给出其不适用场景及次选方法。

摘要:

Twitter数据已被社会科学与计算机科学各领域的研究者广泛使用。开展Twitter数据研究时,一个常见目标是构建来自特定国家的用户随机样本。然而,尽管学界已提出多种方法,它们的性能对比大多尚未得到探究。本文实现了四种用于收集美国Twitter用户随机样本的常用方法:1% Stream(1%流采样)、Bounding Box(边界框法)、Location Query(位置查询法)和Language Query(语言查询法)。随后,我们从推文层面和用户层面的指标,以及在使用与不使用不同人口统计特征纳入概率的情况下估计美国人口的准确性两方面,对这些方法进行了比较。结果显示,1% Stream方法在推文和用户层面指标上的表现与其他方法不同,且在构建具有人口代表性的样本方面效果最佳。我们讨论了1% Stream方法可能不适用的条件,并推荐Bounding Box方法作为次优选择。

英文摘要:

Twitter data has been widely used by researchers across various social and computer science disciplines. A common aim when working with Twitter data is the construction of a random sample of users from a given country. However, while several methods have been proposed in the literature, their comparative performance is mostly unexplored. In this paper, we implement four common methods to collect a random sample of Twitter users in the US: 1% Stream, Bounding Box, Location Query, and Language Query. Then, we compare the methods according to their tweet- and user-level metrics as well as their accuracy in estimating US population with and without using inclusion probabilities of various demographics. Our results show that the 1% Stream method performs differently than others in tweet- and user-level metrics, and best for the construction of a population representative sample. We discuss the conditions under which the 1% Stream method may not be suitable and suggest the Bounding Box method as the second-best method to use.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑