Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36776143›Full record

ArticleSocial network analysis and mining2023

Nuclear energy: Twitter data mining for social listening analysis.

Enara Zarrabeitia-Bilbao, Maite Jaca-Madariaga, Rosa María Rio-Belver, Izaskun Álvarez-Meaza

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Social network analysis and mining, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Enara Zarrabeitia-BilbaoFaculty of Engineering, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU, Bilbao, Spain.
Maite Jaca-MadariagaFaculty of Engineering, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU, Bilbao, Spain.
Rosa María Rio-BelverFaculty of Engineering, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain.
Izaskun Álvarez-MeazaFaculty of Engineering, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU, Bilbao, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Knowing the presence, attitude and sentiment of society is important to promote policies and actions that influence the development of different energy sources and even more so in the case of an energy source such as nuclear, which has not been without controversy in recent years. The purpose of this paper was to conduct a social listening analysis of nuclear energy using Twitter data mining. A total of 3,709,417 global tweets were analyzed through the interactions and emotions of Twitter users throughout a crucial year: 6 months before and 6 months after the beginning of Russian invasion of Ukraine and the first attack on the Zaporizhzhia NPP. The research uses a novel approach to combine social network analysis methods with the application of artificial neural network models. The results reveal the digital conversation is influenced by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. However, tweets containing personal opinions of influential people also manage to enter the digital conversation, defining the magnitude and direction of the debate. The digital conversation is not constructed as a public argument. Generally, it is a conversation with non-polarized communities (politics, business, science and media); neither armed conflict or military threats against Zaporizhzhia NPP succeed in rousing anti-nuclear voices, even though these events do modify the orientation of the sentiment in the language used, making it more negative.

Indexed as

Artificial neural networksNuclear energyRussia–Ukraine conflictSocial network analysisTwitter

Identifiers

PMID36776143
PMCPMC9900545

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.