Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36921000›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Enhanced geocoding precision for location inference of tweet text using spaCy, Nominatim and Google Maps. A comparative analysis of the influence of data selection.

Helen Ngonidzashe Serere, Bernd Resch, Clemens Rudolf Havas

Full text read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. 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. Article
  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.

Helen Ngonidzashe SerereDepartment of Digital and Analytical Sciences, University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-3494-7337
Bernd ReschDepartment of Digital and Analytical Sciences, University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria.
Clemens Rudolf HavasDepartment of Digital and Analytical Sciences, University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Twitter location inference methods are developed with the purpose of increasing the percentage of geotagged tweets by inferring locations on a non-geotagged dataset. For validation of proposed approaches, these location inference methods are developed on a fully geotagged dataset on which the attached Global Navigation Satellite System coordinates are used as ground truth data. Whilst a substantial number of location inference methods have been developed to date, questions arise pertaining the generalizability of the developed location inference models on a non-geotagged dataset. This paper proposes a high precision location inference method for inferring tweets' point of origin based on location mentions within the tweet text. We investigate the influence of data selection by comparing the model performance on two datasets. For the first dataset, we use a proportionate sample of tweet sources of a geotagged dataset. For the second dataset, we use a modelled distribution of tweet sources following a non-geotagged dataset. Our results showed that the distribution of tweet sources influences the performance of location inference models. Using the first dataset we outweighed state-of-the-art location extraction models by inferring 61.9%, 86.1% and 92.1% of the extracted locations within 1 km, 10 km and 50 km radius values, respectively. However, using the second dataset our precision values dropped to 45.3%, 73.1% and 81.0% for the same radius values.

Indexed as

Geographic MappingSocial MediaHumansSearch Engine

Identifiers

PMID36921000
PMCPMC10016707

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read211
identifiers read12
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.