Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Samuel Barbosa

dblp:170/0229 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
2as first author
0since 2021 · last 2016
0000-0002-9602-5338ORCID · corroborated

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 2 · 2 first-authorSoftware engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 first-authorDatabases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1 · 1 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper
Web and social media mining · 50% Data mining · 50%
Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper
Computational social science and digital humanities · 100%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Empirical software engineering · 100%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Computational social science and digital humanities › social computing
online community analysis
0.212016
Averaging Gone Wrong: Using Time-Aware Analyses to Better Understand Behavior · WWW 2016
Web and social media mining
social media analysis
0.212016
Averaging Gone Wrong: Using Time-Aware Analyses to Better Understand Behavior · WWW 2016
Data mining
temporal analysis
0.212016
Averaging Gone Wrong: Using Time-Aware Analyses to Better Understand Behavior · WWW 2016
Empirical software engineering
mining software repositories
0.112016
Averaging Gone Wrong: Using Time-Aware Analyses to Better Understand Behavior · WWW 2016

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

time-aware analysis · 0.8cohort analysis · 0.8
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2016 Averaging Gone Wrong: Using Time-Aware Analyses to Better Understand Behavior
abstract
Online communities provide a fertile ground for analyzing people's behavior and improving our understanding of social processes. Because both people and communities change over time, we argue that analyses of these communities that take time into account will lead to deeper and more accurate results. Using Reddit as an example, we study the evolution of users based on comment and submission data from 2007 to 2014. Even using one of the simplest temporal differences between users---yearly cohorts---we find wide differences in people's behavior, including comment activity, effort, and survival. Further, not accounting for time can lead us to misinterpret important phenomena. For instance, we observe that average comment length decreases over any fixed period of time, but comment length in each cohort of users steadily increases during the same period after an abrupt initial drop, an example of Simpson's Paradox. Dividing cohorts into sub-cohorts based on the survival time in the community provides further insights; in particular, longer-lived users start at a higher activity level and make more and shorter comments than those who leave earlier. These findings both give more insight into user evolution in Reddit in particular, and raise a number of interesting questions around studying online behavior going forward.
Samuel Barbosa, Dan Cosley, Amit Sharma 0007, Roberto Marcondes Cesar Junior
WWW1
2015 Using Text Similarity to Detect Social Interactions not Captured by Formal Reply Mechanisms
abstract
In modeling social interaction online, it is important to understand when people are reacting to each other. Many systems have explicit indicators of replies, such as threading in discussion forums or replies and retweets in Twitter. However, it is likely these explicit indicators capture only part of people's reactions to each other, thus, computational social science approaches that use them to infer relationships or influence are likely to miss the mark. This paper explores the problem of detecting non-explicit responses, presenting a new approach that uses tf-idf similarity between a user's own tweets and recent tweets by people they follow. Based on a month's worth of posting data from 449 ego networks in Twitter, this method demonstrates that it is likely that at least 11% of reactions are not captured by the explicit reply and retweet mechanisms. Further, these uncaptured reactions are not evenly distributed between users: some users, who create replies and retweets without using the official interface mechanisms, are much more responsive to followees than they appear. This suggests that detecting non-explicit responses is an important consideration in mitigating biases and building more accurate models when using these markers to study social interaction and information diffusion.
Samuel Barbosa, Roberto Marcondes Cesar Junior, Dan Cosley
e-Science1