Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userDissecting the Meme Magic: Understanding Indicators of Virality in Image Memes
111
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Emiliano De Cristofaro
Publication date
2021
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Despite the increasingly important role played by image memes, we do not yet have a solid understanding of the elements that might make a meme go viral on social media. In this paper, we investigate what visual elements distinguish image memes that are highly viral on social media from those that do not get re-shared, across three dimensions: composition, subjects, and target audience. Drawing from research in art theory, psychology, marketing, and neuroscience, we develop a codebook to characterize image memes, and use it to annotate a set of 100 image memes collected from 4chans Politically Incorrect Board (/pol/). On the one hand, we find that highly viral memes are more likely to use a close-up scale, contain characters, and include positive or negative emotions. On the other hand, image memes that do not present a clear subject the viewer can focus attention on, or that include long text are not likely to be re-shared by users. We train machine learning models to distinguish between image memes that are likely to go viral and those that are unlikely to be re-shared, obtaining an AUC of 0.866 on our dataset. We also show that the indicators of virality identified by our model can help characterize the most viral memes posted on mainstream online social networks too, as our classifiers are able to predict 19 out of the 20 most popular image memes posted on Twitter and Reddit between 2016 and 2018. Overall, our analysis sheds light on what indicators characterize viral and non-viral visual content online, and set the basis for developing better techniques to create or moderate content that is more likely to catch the viewers attention.
rate research
Read More
Accurately and efficiently crowdsourcing complex, open-ended tasks can be difficult, as crowd participants tend to favor short, repetitive microtasks. We study the crowdsourcing of large networks where the crowd provides the network topology via microtasks. Crowds can explore many types of social and information networks, but we focus on the network of causal attributions, an important network that signifies cause-and-effect relationships. We conduct experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT) testing how workers propose and validate individual causal relationships and introduce a method for independent crowd workers to explore large networks. The core of the method, Iterative Pathway Refinement, is a theoretically-principled mechanism for efficient exploration via microtasks. We evaluate the method using synthetic networks and apply it on AMT to extract a large-scale causal attribution network, then investigate the structure of this network as well as the activity patterns and efficiency of the workers who constructed this network. Worker interactions reveal important characteristics of causal perception and the network data they generate can improve our understanding of causality and causal inference.
The increasing pervasiveness of social media creates new opportunities to study human social behavior, while challenging our capability to analyze their massive data streams. One of the emerging tasks is to distinguish between different kinds of activities, for example engineered misinformation campaigns versus spontaneous communication. Such detection problems require a formal definition of meme, or unit of information that can spread from person to person through the social network. Once a meme is identified, supervised learning methods can be applied to classify different types of communication. The appropriate granularity of a meme, however, is hardly captured from existing entities such as tags and keywords. Here we present a framework for the novel task of detecting memes by clustering messages from large streams of social data. We evaluate various similarity measures that leverage content, metadata, network features, and their combinations. We also explore the idea of pre-clustering on the basis of existing entities. A systematic evaluation is carried out using a manually curated dataset as ground truth. Our analysis shows that pre-clustering and a combination of heterogeneous features yield the best trade-off between number of clusters and their quality, demonstrating that a simple combination based on pairwise maximization of similarity is as effective as a non-trivial optimization of parameters. Our approach is fully automatic, unsupervised, and scalable for real-time detection of memes in streaming data.
Many researchers studying online social communities seek to make such communities better. However, understanding what better means is challenging, due to the divergent opinions of community members, and the multitude of possible community values which often conflict with one another. Community members own values for their communities are not well understood, and how these values align with one another is an open question. Previous research has mostly focused on specific and comparatively well-defined harms within online communities, such as harassment, rule-breaking, and misinformation. In this work, we ask 39 community members on reddit to describe their values for their communities. We gather 301 responses in members own words, spanning 125 unique communities, and use iterative categorization to produce a taxonomy of 29 different community values across 9 major categories. We find that members value a broad range of topics ranging from technical features to the diversity of the community, and most frequently prioritize content quality. We identify important understudied topics such as content quality and community size, highlight where values conflict with one another, and call for research into governance methods for communities that protect vulnerable members.
The use of automatic grading tools has become nearly ubiquitous in large undergraduate programming courses, and recent work has focused on improving the quality of automatically generated feedback. However, there is a relative lack of data directly comparing student outcomes when receiving computer-generated feedback and human-written feedback. This paper addresses this gap by splitting one 90-student class into two feedback groups and analyzing differences in the two cohorts performance. The class is an intro to AI with programming HW assignments. One group of students received detailed computer-generated feedback on their programming assignments describing which parts of the algorithms logic was missing; the other group additionally received human-written feedback describing how their programs syntax relates to issues with their logic, and qualitative (style) recommendations for improving their code. Results on quizzes and exam questions suggest that human feedback helps students obtain a better conceptual understanding, but analyses found no difference between the groups ability to collaborate on the final project. The course grade distribution revealed that students who received human-written feedback performed better overall; this effect was the most pronounced in the middle two quartiles of each group. These results suggest that feedback about the syntax-logic relation may be a primary mechanism by which human feedback improves student outcomes.
In this position paper, I provide a socio-technical perspective on machine learning-based systems. I also explain why systematic audits may be preferable to explainable AI systems. I make concrete recommendations for how institutions governed by public law akin to the German TUV and Stiftung Warentest can ensure that ML systems operate in the interest of the public.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
