2016
DOI: 10.4000/netcom.2529
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Contribution of geotagged Twitter data in the study of a social group’s activity space

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
2
0
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
0
2
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Twitter posts, or tweets, are limited to 280 characters. Twitter had 316 million active users globally with 500 million tweets per day in 2016 [64]- [66], and had further increased to 336 million active users in 2018 [67]. There are three primary sources of location information in tweets, the user's home location mentioned in their profile, location provided in the tweet metadata, and location mentioned in the tweet content [26], [51].…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Twitter posts, or tweets, are limited to 280 characters. Twitter had 316 million active users globally with 500 million tweets per day in 2016 [64]- [66], and had further increased to 336 million active users in 2018 [67]. There are three primary sources of location information in tweets, the user's home location mentioned in their profile, location provided in the tweet metadata, and location mentioned in the tweet content [26], [51].…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, location is not usually shared because of privacy or battery consumption. Some studies (Weidemann, 2014;Cebeillac and Rault, 2016) showed that the number of geolocated tweets is usually between 10% and 20%, but in our experience this number can be much lower, less than 5% in some contexts like politics. So, except some studies that use geolocation data to filter out unwanted messages (Poblete et al, 2011), most of them indicate that the users location is a field that determines with higher precision the geographical position of an user, and therefore their environment.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Por un lado, la existencia de barreras tecnológicas para aplicar y procesar este tipo de información, ya sea por no contar con los equipos necesarios o por falta de conocimientos específicos para ello; por otro lado, las barreras relacionadas con la disponibilidad de los datos, que suelen estar en control de empresas privadas -que los procesan con objetivos comerciales antes que con fines académicos o de planificación urbana-, con potestad para no compartir información o incluso bloquear el acceso a ella (Gutiérrez Puebla, 2018). Otras limitaciones se vinculan con la falta de representatividad o exhaustividad de los datos, que pueden generar sesgos en los resultados (Cebeillac y Rault, 2016) o la falta de resolución o precisión espacial para llevar a cabo estudios específicos (Gutiérrez Puebla et al, 2019;McNeill et al, 2016). Por último, tal como señalan Cebeillac y Rault (2016) es de destacar la necesidad de debates éticos acerca del uso de esta información, ya que con frecuencia los usuarios aceptan los términos y condiciones de los sitios web, plataformas o aplicaciones, desconociendo que dicha información será utilizada para otros fines.…”
unclassified