Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Costas, R."
  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × year_i:[2020 TO 2030}
  1. Costas, R.; Rijcke, S. de; Marres, N.: "Heterogeneous couplings" : operationalizing network perspectives to study science-society interactions through social media metrics (2021) 0.03
    0.028773637 = product of:
      0.11509455 = sum of:
        0.11509455 = weight(_text_:social in 215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11509455 = score(doc=215,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.6230592 = fieldWeight in 215, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=215)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Social media metrics have a genuine networked nature, reflecting the networking characteristics of the social media platform from where they are derived. This networked nature has been relatively less explored in the literature on altmetrics, although new network-level approaches are starting to appear. A general conceptualization of the role of social media networks in science communication, and particularly of social media as a specific type of interface between science and society, is still missing. The aim of this paper is to provide a conceptual framework for appraising interactions between science and society in multiple directions, in what we call heterogeneous couplings. Heterogeneous couplings are conceptualized as the co-occurrence of science and non-science objects, actors, and interactions in online media environments. This conceptualization provides a common framework to study the interactions between science and non-science actors as captured via online and social media platforms. The conceptualization of heterogeneous couplings opens wider opportunities for the development of network applications and analyses of the interactions between societal and scholarly entities in social media environments, paving the way toward more advanced forms of altmetrics, social (media) studies of science, and the conceptualization and operationalization of more advanced science-society studies.
  2. Fang, Z.; Costas, R.; Tian, W.; Wang, X.; Wouters, P.: How is science clicked on Twitter? : click metrics for Bitly short links to scientific publications (2021) 0.01
    0.010173016 = product of:
      0.040692065 = sum of:
        0.040692065 = weight(_text_:social in 265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040692065 = score(doc=265,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.22028469 = fieldWeight in 265, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=265)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    To provide some context for the potential engagement behavior of Twitter users around science, this article investigates how Bitly short links to scientific publications embedded in scholarly Twitter mentions are clicked on Twitter. Based on the click metrics of over 1.1 million Bitly short links referring to Web of Science (WoS) publications, our results show that around 49.5% of them were not clicked by Twitter users. For those Bitly short links with clicks from Twitter, the majority of their Twitter clicks accumulated within a short period of time after they were first tweeted. Bitly short links to the publications in the field of Social Sciences and Humanities tend to attract more clicks from Twitter over other subject fields. This article also assesses the extent to which Twitter clicks are correlated with some other impact indicators. Twitter clicks are weakly correlated with scholarly impact indicators (WoS citations and Mendeley readers), but moderately correlated to other Twitter engagement indicators (total retweets and total likes). In light of these results, we highlight the importance of paying more attention to the click metrics of URLs in scholarly Twitter mentions, to improve our understanding about the more effective dissemination and reception of science information on Twitter.