Mining Scholarly Communication and Interaction on the Social Web

ABSTRACT

The explosion of Web 2.0 platforms including social networking sites such as Twitter, blogs and wikis affects all web users: scholars included. As a result, there is a need for a comprehensive approach to gain a broader understanding and timely signals of scientific communication as well as how researchers interact on the social web. Most current work in this area deals with either a low number of researchers and heavily relies on manual annotation or large-scale analysis without deep understanding of the underlying researcher population. In this proposal, we present a holistic approach to solve these problems. This research proposes novel methods to collect, filter, analyze and make sense of scholars and scholarly communication by integrating heterogeneous data sources from fast social media streams as well as the academic web. Applying reproducible research, contributing applications and data sets, the thesis proposal strives to add value by mining the social web for social good.

References

1. J. Bollen, H. Mao, and X. Zeng. Twitter mood predicts the stock market. Journal of Computational Science, 2(1):1 -- 8, 2011.
2. M. Conover, J. Ratkiewicz, M. Francisco, B. Gonçalves, A. Flammini, and F. Menczer. Political polarization on twitter. In Proc. 5th Intl. Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, 2011.
3. G. Eysenbach. Can tweets predict citations? metrics of social impact based on twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact. J Med Internet Res, 13(4), 2011.
4. V. R. K. Garimella, I. Weber, and S. Dal Cin. From "i love you babe" to "leave me alone"-romantic relationship breakups on twitter. In Social Informatics, pages 199--215. Springer, 2014.
5. K. Gimpel, N. Schneider, B. O'Connor, D. Das, D. Mills, J. Eisenstein, M. Heilman, D. Yogatama, J. Flanigan, and N. A. Smith. Part-of-speech tagging for twitter: Annotation, features, and experiments. In ACL (Short Papers), pages 42--47. The Association for Computer Linguistics, 2011.
6. O. Goga, H. Lei, S. H. K. Parthasarathi, G. Friedland, R. Sommer, and R. Teixeira. Exploiting innocuous activity for correlating users across sites. In WWW, pages 447--458. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee / ACM, 2013.
7. S. D. Gollapalli, C. Caragea, P. Mitra, and C. L. Giles. Researcher homepage classification using unlabeled data. In WWW, pages 471--482, 2013.
8. B. Hachey, W. Radford, J. Nothman, M. Honnibal, and J. R. Curran. Evaluating entity linking with wikipedia. Artif. Intell., 194:130--150, 2013.
9. A. T. Hadgu and R. J\"aschke. Identifying and analyzing researchers on twitter. WebSci '14, pages 23--32, New York, NY, USA, 2014. ACM.
10. X. Han, L. Sun, and J. Zhao. Collective entity linking in web text: a graph-based method. In SIGIR, pages 765--774. ACM, 2011.
11. S. M. Kywe, E.-P. Lim, and F. Zhu. A survey of recommender systems in twitter. In SocInfo, volume 7710 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 420--433. Springer, 2012.
12. D. Milne and I. H. Witten. Learning to link with wikipedia. In CIKM, pages 509--518. ACM, 2008.
13. A. Pilz and G. Paaß. From names to entities using thematic context distance. In CIKM, pages 857--866. ACM, 2011.
14. J. Priem, H. A. Piwowar, and B. M. Hemminger. Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly impact. arXiv preprint arXiv:1203.4745, 2012.
15. A. Ritter, S. Clark, Mausam, and O. Etzioni. Named entity recognition in tweets: An experimental study. In EMNLP, pages 1524--1534. ACL, 2011.
16. A. Sadilek and H. Kautz. Modeling the impact of lifestyle on health at scale. In Proceedings of the Sixth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, WSDM '13, pages 637--646, New York, NY, USA, 2013. ACM.
17. A. Samoilenko and T. Yasseri. The distorted mirror of wikipedia: a quantitative analysis of wikipedia coverage of academics. EPJ Data Science, 3(1):1--11, 2014.
18. H. Shema, J. Bar-Ilan, and M. Thelwall. Do blog citations correlate with a higher number of future citations? research blogs as a potential source for alternative metrics. JASIST, 65(5):1018--1027, 2014.
19. W. Shen, J. Wang, and J. Han. Entity linking with a knowledge base: Issues, techniques, and solutions. Knowledge and Data Engineering, IEEE Transactions on, 27(2):443--460, Feb. 2015.
20. X. Shuai, Z. Jiang, X. Liu, and J. Bollen. A comparative study of academic and wikipedia ranking. In JCDL, pages 25--28. ACM, 2013.
21. J. Tang, D. Zhang, and L. Yao. Social network extraction of academic researchers. In Data Mining, 2007. ICDM 2007. Seventh IEEE International Conference on, pages 292--301, Oct. 2007.
22. C. Wang and D. M. Blei. Collaborative topic modeling for recommending scientific articles. In KDD, pages 448--456. ACM, 2011.
23. K. Weller, E. Dröge, and C. Puschmann. Citation analysis in twitter: Approaches for defining and measuring information flows within tweets during scientific conferences. In Proc. ESWC 2011 Workshop on 'Making Sense of Microposts', pages 1--12, 2011.
24. A. Younus, M. A. Qureshi, P. Manchanda, C. O'Riordan, and G. Pasi. Utilizing microblog data in a topic modelling framework for scientific articles' recommendation. In Social Informatics, pages 384--395. Springer, 2014.
25. R. Zafarani and H. Liu. Connecting users across social media sites: a behavioral-modeling approach. In KDD, pages 41--49. ACM, 2013.

Index Terms

• Information systems

  • Information retrieval

    • Retrieval tasks and goals

      • Document filtering

      • Information extraction

  • Information systems applications

    • Data mining