Thousands Of Submissions Research Articles

Cura: Curation at Social Media Scale

How can online communities execute a focused vision for their space? Curation offers one approach, where community leaders manually select content to share with the community. Curation enables leaders to shape a space that matches their taste, norms, and values, but the practice is often intractable at social media scale: curators cannot realistically sift through hundreds or thousands of submissions daily. In this paper, we contribute algorithmic and interface foundations enabling curation at scale, and manifest these foundations in a system called Cura. Our approach draws on the observation that, while curators' attention is limited, other community members' upvotes are plentiful and informative of curators' likely opinions. We thus contribute a transformer-based curation model that predicts whether each curator will upvote a post based on previous community upvotes. Cura applies this curation model to create a feed of content that it predicts the curator would want in the community. Evaluations demonstrate that the curation model accurately estimates opinions of diverse curators, that changing curators for a community results in clearly recognizable shifts in the community's content, and that, consequently, curation can reduce anti-social behavior by half without extra moderation effort. By sampling different types of curators, Cura lowers the threshold to genres of curated social media ranging from editorial groups to stakeholder roundtables to democracies.

Sentiment Analysis of Social Media Twitter with Case of Anti-LGBT Campaign in Indonesia using Naïve Bayes, Decision Tree, and Random Forest Algorithm

People use social media as a means to express their thoughts, interests, and opinions on various things. Thousands of submissions occur every day on every social media. Everyone can express their opinions through social media freely. These opinions contain positive, negative and neutral sentiments on a topic. The case study taken by researchers is the Anti-LGBT campaign in Indonesia. The case was taken because the Anti-LGBT campaign was widely discussed by the Indonesian people on Twitter’s social media. If you want to know the tendency of public comments on the Anti-LGBT campaign in Indonesia, is it positive, negative, or neutral, then a sentiment analysis is conducted. The algorithm used in conducting sentiment analysis is Naïve Bayes because it has a high degree of accuracy in classifying sentiment analysis. The stages in conducting sentiment analysis in this study are preprocessing data, processing data, classification, and evaluation. The sentiment analysis obtained in this study shows that Twitter users in Indonesia give more neutral comments. In this study, an accuracy of 86.43% was obtained from testing data using Naïve Bayes Algorithm in RapidMiner tools, where the accuracy is higher than the other algorithms, Decision Tree and Random Forest which is 82.91%.

Google versus the trolls

Google's Patent Purchase Promotion, which the company says received thousands of submissions during a three-week window, may prompt similar experiments in keeping patents out of the hands of what it considers the bad guys of intellectual property.

Agreement between thoracic reviewers for the European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery

Medical journals get several thousands of submissions per year and editors make every effort to select the best manuscripts for publication. Many of us have had the frustrating experience of seeing our manuscripts rejected by scientific journals. In such a situation, we usually blame the reviewers or the editors thinking that they misunderstood the relevance of our manuscript. In the European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EJCTS), associate editors (AEs) play the hard role of gatekeepers [1], opening or closing the way for a final approval of manuscripts by the Editor-in-Chief. We, as AE, have to review hundreds of manuscripts a year and are exposed to making mistakes in both ways: either accepting not-so-good papers or rejecting manuscripts that are finally approved and highly cited in other journals. Agreement between reviewers facilitates very much the editorial process. Indeed, if two reviewers have found major problems and both recommend a paper to be excluded from publication we should admit that some wrong aspects of the manuscript have to be modified before a sound text can be printed. The problem arises when major discrepancies are evidenced by the reviewers’ comments. In such instances, an arbitrator can be invited or, alternatively, the AE makes a thorough assessment of the manuscript, if