Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 72 references

Social Media and Academia: How Gender Influences Online Scholarly Discourse

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that replies to female academics contain more threats and severe toxicity than replies to male academics, even in a matched sample of computer science professors from top US universities.

desk verdict A useful descriptive study of gender patterns in CS academics' Twitter activity, but its headline claim about toxic replies is not yet established because the analysis lacks statistical inference and does not control for topic or engagement. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.03773 v1 pith:QJDKJID2 submitted 2025-04-29 cs.SI

Rrubaa Panchendrarajan , Harsh Saxena , Akrati Saxena This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SI
keywords genderbiasscholarlydiscoursetoxicityTwitterharassmentsentimentanalysisacademicsocialmediacomputerscience
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper studies how gender shapes online scholarly discourse by analyzing Twitter/X posts and replies from computer science professors at top US universities. It finds that while male and female academics discuss largely similar topics, audiences respond differently: replies to female academics more frequently contain threats and severe toxicity, whereas identity attacks reach similar rates for both genders with a slight skew toward men. The paper also reports that women express stronger positive and negative sentiments and more empathy, while men post more about AI, machine learning, and personal perspectives. The authors intend these findings to show that gender influences both self-presentation and audience hostility in academic social media, and to motivate more inclusive and safer scholarly engagement online.

What carries the argument

The central object is a comparative reply-toxicity analysis using the Perspective API's scores for threat, severe toxicity, and identity attack, combined with a fine-tuned BERTweet classifier that predicts the original author's gender from reply text. The Perspective scores provide a continuous measure of hostility, and the classifier tests whether reply language is sufficiently gender-distinct that replies can be assigned to the target's gender. Supporting analyses use topic clustering of tweet embeddings, sentiment and emotion classifiers, and an LLM-based writing-style questionnaire.

What would settle it

A matched-topic study of replies to male and female academics' tweets about the same news event, paper, or identical text would settle the claim: if the threat and severe-toxicity gap disappears once the tweeted content is held fixed, the gender attribution is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is a gendered asymmetry in the hostility of replies directed at academics on X/Twitter. Measuring reply text with toxicity scores, the authors find that a higher percentage of replies to female academics cross a high threshold for threat (15.6% vs 10.7%) and severe toxicity (20.4% vs 18.3%) compared with replies to male academics, while the proportion of identity attacks is nearly equal (21.1% vs 22.7%). A classifier fine-tuned on reply text can reliably identify threatening and severely toxic replies aimed at women and identity attacks aimed at men, suggesting the language directed at each gender is measurably different. The paper also finds that male-authored tweets draw more engagement, female academics post with stronger positive and negative sentiment around events, and female writing style is more empathetic and personal.

Load-bearing premise

The central argument depends on the assumption that the higher threat and severe-toxicity rates in replies to female academics are caused by the author's gender rather than by differences in what they tweet about, how popular their posts are, or the topics that trigger hostile replies.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, gender alone—not just content—shapes the hostility of audience responses to academics on Twitter/X.
  • Moderation and harassment-detection systems may need to account for the gendered distribution of threat and severe toxicity, since these reply types are more common for female academics.
  • The finding that identity attacks skew toward male academics at the highest intensities suggests that the form of abuse, not just its volume, differs by gender.
  • The writing-style differences (more empathy and personal sharing by women) and engagement gaps (male-authored tweets getting more retweets and favorites) imply that gender influences how academics present themselves and how their work circulates.
  • For scientific communication, the result implies that female academics face a less hospitable reply environment even within a comparatively elite and homogeneous population.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural test of the toxicity claim would be a matched-topic design: compare replies to male and female academics' tweets about the same paper, event, or standardized prompt; if the threat and severe toxicity gap persists once content is held fixed, the gender attribution is much stronger.
  • The BERTweet classifier's ability to infer the target's gender from reply text could be repurposed as a low-cost auditing tool to estimate gendered harassment exposure across other fields or platforms.
  • Because the sample is limited to computer science professors at top-20 US universities, the findings may understate harassment in less visible or less protected academic contexts.
  • If platforms incorporate reply-toxicity scores into moderation, the gendered distribution found here suggests that automated systems should be tuned separately for threat and identity-attack categories rather than treated as a single toxicity bucket.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper investigates gender differences in the online scholarly discourse of computer science academics on X/Twitter, using a dataset of 627 academics from top 20 US universities. It analyzes tweets and retweets for topic prevalence, sentiment, emotion, and writing style (via an LLM), and replies for toxicity and threats using Google's Perspective API. The central claim is that replies to female academics more frequently contain severe toxic and threatening language than replies to male academics, alongside secondary claims about women's stronger emotional expression and differences in writing style. The paper is observational and descriptive, presenting comparisons of percentages and average scores without statistical inference or confounding control.

Significance. If the central claim were supported by rigorous evidence, this would be a valuable contribution to the literature on gender-based harassment in academic social media, with direct implications for platform moderation and academic inclusion policies. The authors have assembled a purpose-built dataset and used multiple NLP tools (topic clustering, sentiment, emotion, Perspective API), and the topic analysis includes a manual verification step, which are strengths. The study also benefits from focusing on a relatively homogeneous population (CS faculty at top universities), which mitigates some demographic confounding. However, the absence of statistical tests, the lack of control for tweet content and engagement, and the mislabeled classifier experiment currently prevent the paper from establishing its headline finding.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.2, Table 6] The central claim that female academics receive more threats and severe toxicity is based on unadjusted percentages without any measure of uncertainty. For example, the high-threat percentages are 15.6% for female-authored tweets versus 10.7% for male-authored tweets, and the severe-toxicity percentages are 20.4% versus 18.3%. No confidence intervals, significance tests, or effect sizes are reported anywhere in the paper. Moreover, the data have a nested structure — multiple replies per tweet and multiple tweets per academic — which violates the independence assumption of simple comparisons. The authors should use cluster-robust inference or a mixed-effects model that accounts for tweet and author random effects; otherwise the differences could easily be within sampling variability.
  2. [Sections 4.1 and 4.2; Figure 2] The analysis does not control for the content or popularity of the original tweets, which is a load-bearing confound for the main finding. Section 4.1 itself shows that male and female academics post different topic mixes (Figure 2b) and that engagement differs by topic and gender (Figure 2c). Replies to politically charged posts about 'Current US Society and Opinions' are plausibly more hostile than replies to workshop announcements, independent of the author's gender. The BERTweet experiment in Section 4.2 is labeled a 'regression analysis' but is actually a binary classifier that predicts the author's gender from reply text; it does not adjust for topic, engagement, follower count, or tweet length. As such, the classifier can exploit topic cues rather than gender-directed hostility, and the claim that the observed differences are attributable to the author's gender is not established.
  3. [Section 4.2, Figure 6] The interpretation of the confusion matrices as evidence of gender-directed hostility is circular. Training a classifier to distinguish replies to male-authored tweets from replies to female-authored tweets and then reporting that 'the model reliably identifies threatening and toxic replies targeting women' conflates classifiability with evidence about the cause of the hostility. The classifier's accuracy could reflect any systematic difference in replies, including topic, sentiment, or engagement. To support the gender-attribution claim, the authors need to either compare replies to gendered tweets matched on topic and engagement, or explicitly test whether reply toxicity varies with author gender after controlling for tweet-level covariates. As written, the experiment does not provide the stated control.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Section 4.1.1, Figure 2b] The abstract states that women 'post slightly more' on one topic, but Figure 2b shows average counts with no indication of variability or significance; please clarify whether this difference is statistically meaningful or descriptive only.
  2. [Table 6] The table layout is confusing: the column labels 'Male Female' appear in both blocks, and the meaning of the '±' values in the first block is not defined (presumably standard deviation). Please reformat and define all symbols.
  3. [Section 4.1.4, Table 5] The Mixtral-based writing-style analysis is used without validation: there are no agreement statistics with human annotations, no description of how 'Not Sure' responses were handled, and no clarification of whether the percentages are per tweet or per author. These details are needed to assess the reliability of the empathy and personal-experience claims.
  4. [Section 4.2] The threshold for 'high perspective score' (> 0.4) is arbitrary. The authors should justify this cutoff or show that the main results are robust across a range of thresholds.
  5. [Figures 5 and 6] These figures lack axis labels and sample sizes; it is unclear how many replies underlie each density curve or confusion matrix. Please add the required annotations.
  6. [Throughout] The word 'significant' is used in several places without a statistical test, such as 'significantly more engagement' in Section 5 and 'gender plays a significant role' in the conclusion. Please either provide the corresponding tests or use non-statistical wording.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation; central toxicity gap comes from external Perspective API measurements, not from a fitted parameter or self-citation.

full rationale

This is an observational measurement study, not a derivation chain. The headline result (female academics receive more threatening and severely toxic replies) is read directly from Table 6, which reports Perspective API scores computed by an external tool on collected replies; no parameter of the paper's own model is fitted to this quantity and then renamed as a prediction. The BERTweet classifier in Section 4.2 is trained to predict the tweet author's gender from reply text, not to estimate the toxicity gap, so its confusion matrix is at most a separate linguistic-pattern analysis; even if calling it a 'regression' that controls for other factors is statistically inappropriate, it does not make the headline result definitionally equal to its input. The paper's self-citations ([33], [46], [58], [59]) appear only as contextual related-work or framing references and are not load-bearing for the central toxicity claim. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. The main empirical claims are contingent on external tools (Perspective API, PySentimiento, TweetNLP, Mixtral) and on unadjusted comparisons, which raises validity questions about confounding and uncertainty but not circularity. Therefore no circular step is identified; the minor self-citations are the only reason the score is not zero.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new mathematical parameters or entities. The free parameters listed are methodological choices (cluster count, toxicity threshold, class balance, train-test split) that the central claims depend on. The key assumptions are the validity of gender labeling, the comparability of the two groups, the validity of the NLP tools, and the causal attribution of reply differences to gender rather than content. The last assumption is the most fragile and is not tested.

free parameters (4)
  • Number of topic clusters (k) = 11
    Chosen via Silhouette score on a random 10% sample of tweets (Section 4.1.1). All subsequent topic comparisons depend on this clustering choice.
  • High toxicity threshold = 0.4
    Replies with Perspective scores above 0.4 are classified as high-intensity for threat, severe toxicity, identity attack, insult, and profanity (Section 4.2). The threshold is chosen by hand and directly determines the reported percentages of high-toxicity replies.
  • Undersampling ratio for reply classifier = Equal number of replies (majority class undersampled)
    Section 4.2 undersamples replies to male academics to balance classes before training the BERTweet classifier; this changes the class prior and the resulting confusion matrices.
  • Train-test split ratio = 0.6:0.4
    Section 4.2 uses a 60/40 split for training/testing the gender classifier, with no cross-validation or random seed reported.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Gender is binary and can be accurately inferred from names, pronouns, and profile pictures on departmental homepages.
    Used throughout Section 3 to label 627 academics as male or female; errors would misattribute replies and language patterns. The paper acknowledges this in the limitations.
  • domain assumption The selected top-20 CS academics are comparable across genders after restricting by institution and position.
    Section 3 states the restriction is to ensure comparability of profiles, but Table 2 shows gender imbalance by position and the analyses do not control for seniority, followers, or topic.
  • domain assumption External NLP tools (PySentimiento, TweetNLP, Perspective API) and the Mixtral LLM produce valid measures of sentiment, emotion, toxicity, and writing style for this population.
    Sections 4.1.2, 4.1.3, 4.1.4, and 4.2 rely on these tools without reporting validation on the academic tweet sample. The paper mentions manual validation in the limitations but does not describe it.
  • ad hoc to paper Differences in replies to male and female academics are attributable to author gender rather than tweet topic, sentiment, or popularity.
    Section 4.2 compares reply toxicity and trains a classifier to predict author gender from reply text without controlling for the original tweet's content or engagement. The Discussion interprets the classifier's behavior as evidence of gender-based hostility. This is an unstated and untested assumption specific to the paper's analysis.
  • domain assumption The collected Twitter data (up to 3,500 tweets per user and 2022 replies) is representative of each academic's online discourse.
    Section 3 limits data to the latest 3,500 tweets per user and replies from 2022 due to API constraints; temporally limited data may not capture long-term patterns.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Social Media and Academia: How Gender Influences Online Scholarly Discourse." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QJDKJID2

@misc{pith2026250503773,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Social Media and Academia: How Gender Influences Online Scholarly Discourse},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QJDKJID2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.03773}
}
read the original abstract

This study investigates gender-based differences in online communication patterns of academics, focusing on how male and female academics represent themselves and how users interact with them on the social media platform X (formerly Twitter). We collect historical Twitter data of academics in computer science at the top 20 USA universities and analyze their tweets, retweets, and replies to uncover systematic patterns such as discussed topics, engagement disparities, and the prevalence of negative language or harassment. The findings indicate that while both genders discuss similar topics, men tend to post more tweets about AI innovation, current USA society, machine learning, and personal perspectives, whereas women post slightly more on engaging AI events and workshops. Women express stronger positive and negative sentiments about various events compared to men. However, the average emotional expression remains consistent across genders, with certain emotions being more strongly associated with specific topics. Writing-style analysis reveals that female academics show more empathy and are more likely to discuss personal problems and experiences, with no notable differences in other factors, such as self-praise, politeness, and stereotypical comments. Analyzing audience responses indicates that female academics are more frequently subjected to severe toxic and threatening replies. Our findings highlight the impact of gender in shaping the online communication of academics and emphasize the need for a more inclusive environment for scholarly engagement.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.03773 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The Silhouette scores across varying cluster size. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Statistics of the identified topics and tweets, retweets [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Weekly avg. of positive and negative sentiment scores by both gender with key events identified at sentiment peaks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Average emotion expressed in tweets and retweets [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Density distribution of perspective scores [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Confusion matrix of fine-tuned BertTweet model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Jaime Alba-Cepero, Miguel Cabezas-Puerto, Vivian F López-Batista, and Ánge- les M Moreno-Montero. 2022. Bias Analysis on Twitter. In International Confer- ence on Disruptive Technologies, Tech Ethics and Artificial Intelligence . Springer, 131–142

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Marina Bagić Babac and Vedran Podobnik. 2016. A sentiment analysis of who participates, how and why, at social media sport websites: How differently men and women write about football.Online Information Review 40, 6 (2016), 814–833

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Jamie Bartlett, Richard Norrie, Sofia Patel, Rebekka Rumpel, and Simon Wibberley

    work page

  4. [4]

    Jose Camacho-Collados, Kiamehr Rezaee, Talayeh Riahi, Asahi Ushio, Daniel Loureiro, Dimosthenis Antypas, Joanne Boisson, Luis Espinosa-Anke, Fangyu Liu, Eugenio Martínez-Cámara, et al. 2022. TweetNLP: Cutting-Edge Natural Language Processing for Social Media. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System...

    2022

  5. [5]

    Jeffrey P Carpenter and Daniel G Krutka. 2014. How and why educators use Twitter: A survey of the field. Journal of research on technology in education 46, 4 (2014), 414–434

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Liwen Chen and Tung-Liang Chen. 2012. Use of Twitter for formative evaluation: Reflections on trainer and trainees’ experiences. British Journal of Educational Technology 43, 2 (2012)

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    Galen Clavio, Patrick Walsh, and Pat Coyle. 2013. The effects of gender on perceptions of team Twitter feeds. Global Sport Business Journal 1, 1 (2013)

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Huseyin Avni Demir and Serkan Dogan. 2022. Correlation between academic citations in emergency medicine journals and Twitter mentions. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine 58 (2022), 33–38

    work page 2022

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    Nikita Deshpande, Jason R Crossley, and Sonya Malekzadeh. 2022. Association between twitter mentions and academic citations in otolaryngology literature. Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery 167, 1 (2022), 73–78

    2022

  2. [10]

    Marco Di Giovanni and Marco Brambilla. 2021. Exploiting Twitter as Source of Large Corpora of Weakly Similar Pairs for Semantic Sentence Embeddings. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguis...

    2021

  3. [11]

    Times Higher Education. 2022. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world- university-rankings/2022. [Accessed 15-01-2025]

    2022

  4. [12]

    female issues

    Heather Evans. 2016. Do women only talk about “female issues”? Gender and issue discussion on Twitter. Online Information Review 40, 5 (2016), 660–672

    2016

  5. [13]

    Hugging Face. 2024. mistralai/Mixtral-8x7B-Instruct-v0.1 · Hugging Face — huggingface.co. https://huggingface.co/mistralai/Mixtral-8x7B-Instruct-v0.1. [Accessed 15-01-2025]

    2024

  6. [14]

    Shereen Fouad and Ezzaldin Alkooheji. 2023. Sentiment analysis for women in stem using twitter and transfer learning models. In 2023 IEEE 17th international conference on semantic computing (ICSC) . IEEE, 227–234

    2023

  7. [15]

    Tamara Fuchs and Fabian Schäfer. 2021. Normalizing misogyny: hate speech and verbal abuse of female politicians on Japanese Twitter. In Japan forum, Vol. 33. Taylor & Francis, 553–579

    2021

  8. [16]

    David Garcia, Ingmar Weber, and Venkata Garimella. 2014. Gender Asymmetries in Reality and Fiction: The Bechdel Test of Social Media. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media 8, 1 (May 2014), 131–140. https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article...

    2014

  9. [17]

    Alejandro Garcia-Rudolph, Sara Laxe, Joan Saurí, and Montserrat Bernabeu Gui- tart. 2019. Stroke survivors on twitter: sentiment and topic analysis from a gender perspective. Journal of medical Internet research 21, 8 (2019), e14077

    2019

  10. [18]

    Soudeh Ghaffari. 2023. Discourses of celebrities on Instagram: digital femininity, self-representation and hate speech. In Social Media Critical Discourse Studies . Routledge, 43–60

    2023

  11. [19]

    Roberto González-Ibánez, Smaranda Muresan, and Nina Wacholder. 2011. Identi- fying sarcasm in twitter: a closer look. In Proceedings of the 49th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics: human language technologies . 581–586

    2011

  12. [20]

    Eduardo Graells-Garrido, Ricardo Baeza-Yates, and Mounia Lalmas. 2019. How representative is an abortion debate on Twitter?. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Web Science. 133–134

    2019

  13. [21]

    Nida Manzoor Hakak, Mohsin Mohd, Mahira Kirmani, and Mudasir Mohd. 2017. Emotion analysis: A survey. In 2017 international conference on computer, com- munications and electronics (COMPTELIX) . IEEE, 397–402

    2017

  14. [22]

    Solomon Hayon, Hemantkumar Tripathi, Ian M Stormont, Meagan M Dunne, Michael J Naslund, and Mohummad M Siddiqui. 2019. Twitter mentions and academic citations in the urologic literature. Urology 123 (2019), 28–33

    2019

  15. [23]

    Kim Holmberg and Iina Hellsten. 2015. Gender differences in the climate change communication on Twitter. Internet research (2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    Lingshu Hu and Michael Wayne Kearney. 2021. Gendered tweets: Computational text analysis of gender differences in political discussion on Twitter. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 40, 4 (2021), 482–503

    2021

  17. [25]

    Maria Iranzo-Cabrera, Maria Jose Castro-Bleda, Iris Simón-Astudillo, and Lluís-F Hurtado. 2024. Journalists’ Ethical Responsibility: Tackling Hate Speech Against Women Politicians in Social Media Through Natural Language Processing Tech- niques. Social Science Computer Review ...

    2024

  18. [26]

    Xin Jin and Jiawei Han. 2010. K-Means Clustering. Springer US, Boston, MA, 563–564

    2010

  19. [27]

    Hae Min Kim, Eileen G Abels, and Christopher C Yang. 2012. Who disseminates academic library information on Twitter? Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 49, 1 (2012), 1–4

    2012

  20. [28]

    Funda Kivran-Swaine, Sam Brody, Nicholas Diakopoulos, and Mor Naaman. 2012. Of joy and gender: emotional expression in online social networks. InProceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on computer supported cooperative work companion . 139–142

    2012

  21. [29]

    Samara Klar, Yanna Krupnikov, John Barry Ryan, Kathleen Searles, and Yotam Shmargad. 2020. Using social media to promote academic research: Identifying the benefits of twitter for sharing academic work.PloS one 15, 4 (2020), e0229446

    2020

  22. [30]

    Charles G Knight and Linda K Kaye. 2016. ‘To tweet or not to tweet?’A compari- son of academics’ and students’ usage of Twitter in academic contexts. Innova- tions in education and teaching international 53, 2 (2016), 145–155

    2016

  23. [31]

    Veltri, Nicole Eling, and Peter Buxmann

    Hanna Krasnova, Natasha F. Veltri, Nicole Eling, and Peter Buxmann. 2017. Why men and women continue to use social networking sites: The role of gender differences. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 26, 4 (2017), 261–284

    2017

  24. [32]

    Vittorio Lingiardi, Nicola Carone, Giovanni Semeraro, Cataldo Musto, Marilisa D’Amico, and Silvia Brena. 2020. Mapping Twitter hate speech towards social and sexual minorities: a lexicon-based approach to semantic content analysis. Behaviour & Information Technology 39, 7 (202...

    2020

  25. [33]

    Mariana Macedo and Akrati Saxena. 2024. Gender differences in online commu- nication: A case study of Soccer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.11051 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Aqdas Malik, Cassandra Heyman-Schrum, and Aditya Johri. 2019. Use of Twitter across educational settings: a review of the literature. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 16, 1 (2019), 1–22

    2019

  27. [35]

    Cristina Manzano and Juan A Sánchez-Giménez. 2019. Women, gender and think tanks: political influence network in Twitter 2018. (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    Anna May, Johannes Wachs, and Anikó Hannák. 2019. Gender differences in participation and reward on Stack Overflow. Empirical Software Engineering 24, 4 (2019), 1997–2019. Rrubaa Panchendrarajan, Harsh Saxena, and Akrati Saxena

    2019

  29. [37]

    Johnnatan Messias, Pantelis Vikatos, and Fabrício Benevenuto. 2017. White, man, and highly followed: Gender and race inequalities in Twitter. In Proceedings of the international conference on web intelligence . 266–274

    2017

  30. [38]

    Carl Miller, David Weir, Shaun Ring, Oliver Marsh, Chris Inskip, and NP Chavana

  31. [39]

    Ehsan Mohammadi, Mike Thelwall, Mary Kwasny, and Kristi L Holmes. 2018. Academic information on Twitter: A user survey.PloS one 13, 5 (2018), e0197265

    2018

  32. [40]

    Marjan Nadim and Audun Fladmoe. 2021. Silencing women? Gender and online harassment. Social Science Computer Review 39, 2 (2021), 245–258

    2021

  33. [41]

    Dat Quoc Nguyen, Thanh Vu, and Anh Tuan Nguyen. 2020. BERTweet: A pre- trained language model for English Tweets. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations . 9–14

    2020

  34. [42]

    Shirin Nilizadeh, Anne Groggel, Peter Lista, Srijita Das, Yong-Yeol Ahn, Apu Kapadia, and Fabio Rojas. 2016. Twitter’s glass ceiling: The effect of perceived gender on online visibility. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media , Vol. 10. 289–298

    2016

  35. [43]

    NLTK. 2024. NLTK :: Search — nltk.org. https://www.nltk.org/search.html?q= stopwords. [Accessed 15-01-2025]

    2024

  36. [44]

    Mehmet Serkan Ozkent, Kadir Böcü, Emre Altintas, and Murat Gul. 2022. Cor- relation between Twitter mentions and academic citations in sexual medicine journals. International journal of impotence research 34, 6 (2022), 593–598

    2022

  37. [45]

    Muireann O’Keeffe. 2019. Academic Twitter and professional learning: myths and realities. International Journal for Academic Development 24, 1 (2019), 35–46

    2019

  38. [46]

    Rrubaa Panchendrarajan and Akrati Saxena. 2023. Topic-based influential user detection: a survey. Applied Intelligence 53, 5 (2023), 5998–6024

    2023

  39. [47]

    Róisín Parkins. 2012. Gender and emotional expressiveness: An analysis of prosodic features in emotional expression . Griffith University Nathan, QLD

    2012

  40. [48]

    Simón Peña-Fernández, Ainara Larrondo-Ureta, and Jordi Morales-i Gras. 2023. Feminism, Gender Identity and Polarization in TikTok and Twitter. Comunicar: Media Education Research Journal 31, 75 (2023), 47–58

    2023

  41. [49]

    Hao Peng, Misha Teplitskiy, Daniel M Romero, and Emőke-Ágnes Horvát. 2022. The gender gap in scholarly self-promotion on social media. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.05330 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Juan Manuel Pérez, Juan Carlos Giudici, and Franco Luque. 2021. pysentimiento: A python toolkit for sentiment analysis and socialnlp tasks. arXiv e-prints (2021), arXiv–2106

    2021

  43. [51]

    Perspective. 2021. Perspective API — perspectiveapi.com. https://perspectiveapi. com/. [Accessed 15-01-2025]

    2021

  44. [52]

    Varsha Pillai and Munmun Ghosh. 2022. Indian female Twitter influencers’ perceptions of trolls. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 9, 1 (2022), 1–8

    2022

  45. [53]

    pypi. 2020. pypi.org. https://pypi.org/project/tweet-preprocessor/. [Accessed 15-01-2025]

    2020

  46. [54]

    Francisco Rangel, Irazú Hernández, Paolo Rosso, and Antonio Reyes. 2014. Emo- tions and irony per gender in facebook. In Proceedings of workshop ES3LOD, LREC. 1–6

    2014

  47. [55]

    Iris Reychav, Ofer Inbar, Tomer Simon, Roger McHaney, and Lin Zhu. 2019. Emotion in enterprise social media systems. Information Technology & People 32, 1 (2019), 18–46

    2019

  48. [56]

    Peter J Rousseeuw. 1987. Silhouettes: a graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis. Journal of computational and applied mathematics 20 (1987), 53–65

    1987

  49. [57]

    Bruno Gabriel Salvador Casara, Alice Lucarini, Eric D Knowles, and Caterina Suitner. 2024. Unveiling gender inequality in the US: Testing validity of a state- level measure of gender inequality and its relationship with feminist online collective action on Twitter. Plos one 19...

    2024

  50. [58]

    Akrati Saxena, Harita Reddy, and Pratishtha Saxena. 2022. Introduction to sentiment analysis covering basics, tools, evaluation metrics, challenges, and ap- plications. Principles of social networking: the new horizon and emerging challenges (2022), 249–277

    2022

  51. [59]

    Akrati Saxena, Harita Reddy, and Pratishtha Saxena. 2022. Recent developments in sentiment analysis on social networks: techniques, datasets, and open issues. Principles of Social Networking: The New Horizon and Emerging Challenges (2022), 279–306

    2022

  52. [60]

    Jeff Seaman and Hester Tinti-Kane. 2013. Social media for teaching and learning . Pearson Learning Systems London

    2013

  53. [61]

    Nordiana Ahmad Kharman Shah and Andrew M Cox. 2017. Uncovering the scholarly use of Twitter in the academia: Experiences in a British University. Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science 22, 3 (2017), 93–108

    2017

  54. [62]

    Bonnie Stewart. 2015. Open to influence: What counts as academic influence in scholarly networked Twitter participation. Learning, Media and Technology 40, 3 (2015), 287–309

    2015

  55. [63]

    Mike Thelwall and David Foster. 2021. Male or female gender-polarized YouTube videos are less viewed. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 72 (05 2021). doi:10.1002/asi.24529

    2021 doi

  56. [64]

    Mike Thelwall, David Wilkinson, and Sukhvinder Uppal. 2010. Data mining emotion in social network communication: Gender differences in MySpace. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 61, 1 (2010), 190–199

    2010

  57. [65]

    Nikki Usher, Jesse Holcomb, and Justin Littman. 2018. Twitter makes it worse: Political journalists, gendered echo chambers, and the amplification of gender bias. The international journal of press/politics 23, 3 (2018), 324–344

    2018

  58. [66]

    Claudia Wagner, David Garcia, Mohsen Jadidi, and Markus Strohmaier. 2015. It’s a Man’s Wikipedia? Assessing Gender Inequality in an Online Encyclopedia. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.1501.06307

    2015 doi arXiv

  59. [67]

    Yi-Chia Wang, Moira Burke, and Robert E Kraut. 2013. Gender, topic, and audi- ence response: An analysis of user-generated content on Facebook. InProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 31–34

    2013

  60. [68]

    Henry H Wu, Ryan J Gallagher, Thayer Alshaabi, Jane L Adams, Joshua R Minot, Michael V Arnold, Brooke Foucault Welles, Randall Harp, Peter Sheridan Dodds, and Christopher M Danforth. 2023. Say Their Names: Resurgence in the collective attention toward Black victims of fatal po...

    2023

  61. [69]

    Juha Yoon, Chase Smith, Amy Chan Hyung Kim, Galen Clavio, Chad Witkemper, and Paul M Pedersen. 2014. Gender Effects on Sport Twitter Consumption: Differences in Motivations and Constraints. Journal of Multidisciplinary Research (1947-2900) 6, 3 (2014)

    2014

  62. [70]

    Yulei Zhang, Yan Dang, and Hsinchun Chen. 2013. Research note: Examining gender emotional differences in Web forum communication. Decision Support Systems 55, 3 (2013), 851–860

    2013

  63. [2014]

    Demos (2014), 1–18

    Misogyny on twitter. Demos (2014), 1–18

    2014

  64. [2023]

    Antisemitism on Twitter before and after Elon Musk’s acquisition.Institute for Strategic Dialogue (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.