Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36273208›Full record

ArticleScientific data2022

Comparative sensitivity of social media data and their acceptable use in research.

Libby Hemphill, Angela Schöpke-Gonzalez, Anmol Panda

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific data, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. An archival perspective on pretraining data.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2024
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

3 authors.

Libby HemphillUniversity of Michigan, School of Information, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA. libbyh@umich.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-3793-7281
Angela Schöpke-GonzalezUniversity of Michigan, School of Information, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7912-1371
Anmol PandaUniversity of Michigan, School of Information, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA.

Funding

National Science Foundation (NSF) 1839868
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Social media data offer a rich resource for researchers interested in public health, labor economics, politics, social behaviors, and other topics. However, scale and anonymity mean that researchers often cannot directly get permission from users to collect and analyze their social media data. This article applies the basic ethical principle of respect for persons to consider individuals' perceptions of acceptable uses of data. We compare individuals' perceptions of acceptable uses of other types of sensitive data, such as health records and individual identifiers, with their perceptions of acceptable uses of social media data. Our survey of 1018 people shows that individuals think of their social media data as moderately sensitive and agree that it should be protected. Respondents are generally okay with researchers using their data in social research but prefer that researchers clearly articulate benefits and seek explicit consent before conducting research. We argue that researchers must ensure that their research provides social benefits worthy of individual risks and that they must address those risks throughout the research process.

Indexed as

Social MediaConfidentialityHumansPublic HealthResearch PersonnelSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID36273208
PMCPMC9587993

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.