Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32341156›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2020

Estimating geographic subjective well-being from Twitter: A comparison of dictionary and data-driven language methods.

Kokil Jaidka, Salvatore Giorgi, H Andrew Schwartz, Margaret L Kern, Lyle H Ungar, Johannes C Eichstaedt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 68 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
68citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

68 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

8 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Kokil JaidkaDepartment of Communications and New Media, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117416; jaidka@nus.edu.sg johannes.stanford@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-8127-1157
Salvatore GiorgiDepartment of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104.
H Andrew SchwartzDepartment of Computer Science, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794.ORCID 0000-0002-6383-3339
Margaret L KernMelbourne Graduate School of Education, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4300-598X
Lyle H UngarDepartment of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104.
Johannes C EichstaedtDepartment of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305; jaidka@nus.edu.sg johannes.stanford@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-3220-2972

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Researchers and policy makers worldwide are interested in measuring the subjective well-being of populations. When users post on social media, they leave behind digital traces that reflect their thoughts and feelings. Aggregation of such digital traces may make it possible to monitor well-being at large scale. However, social media-based methods need to be robust to regional effects if they are to produce reliable estimates. Using a sample of 1.53 billion geotagged English tweets, we provide a systematic evaluation of word-level and data-driven methods for text analysis for generating well-being estimates for 1,208 US counties. We compared Twitter-based county-level estimates with well-being measurements provided by the Gallup-Sharecare Well-Being Index survey through 1.73 million phone surveys. We find that word-level methods (e.g., Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count [LIWC] 2015 and Language Assessment by Mechanical Turk [LabMT]) yielded inconsistent county-level well-being measurements due to regional, cultural, and socioeconomic differences in language use. However, removing as few as three of the most frequent words led to notable improvements in well-being prediction. Data-driven methods provided robust estimates, approximating the Gallup data at up to

Indexed as

big datalanguage analysismachine learningsubjective well-beingTwitter

Identifiers

PMID32341156
PMCPMC7229753

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.