The Volume and Tone of Twitter Posts About Cannabis Use During Pregnancy: Protocol for a Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis use has increased in Canada since its legalization in 2018, including among pregnant women who may be motivated to use cannabis to reduce symptoms of nausea and vomiting. However, a growing body of research suggests that cannabis use during pregnancy may harm the developing fetus. As a result, patients increasingly seek medical advice from online sources, but these platforms may also spread anecdotal descriptions or misinformation. Given the possible disconnect between online messaging and evidence-based research about the effects of cannabis use during pregnancy, there is a potential for advice taken from social media to affect the health of mothers and their babies. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to quantify the volume and tone of English language posts related to cannabis use in pregnancy from January 2012 to December 2021. METHODS: Modeling published frameworks for scoping reviews, we will collect publicly available posts from Twitter that mention cannabis use during pregnancy and use the Twitter Application Programming Interface for Academic Research to extract data from tweets, including public metrics such as the number of likes, retweets, and quotes, as well as health effect mentions, sentiment, location, and users' interests. These data will be used to quantify how cannabis use during pregnancy is discussed on Twitter and to build a qualitative profile of supportive and opposing posters. RESULTS: The CHEO Research Ethics Board reviewed our project and granted an exemption in May 2021. As of December 2021, we have gained approval to use the Twitter Application Programming Interface for Academic Research and have developed a preliminary search strategy that returns over 3 million unique tweets posted between 2012 and 2021. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding how Twitter is being used to discuss cannabis use during pregnancy will help public health agencies and health care providers assess the messaging patients may be receiving and develop communication strategies to counter misinformation, especially in geographical regions where legalization is recent or imminent. Most importantly, we foresee that our findings will assist expecting families in making informed choices about where they choose to access advice about using cannabis during pregnancy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework 10.17605/OSF.IO/BW8DA; www.osf.io/6fb2e. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/34421.

Inequality and inequity in network-based ranking and recommendation algorithms.

Though algorithms promise many benefits including efficiency, objectivity and accuracy, they may also introduce or amplify biases. Here we study two well-known algorithms, namely PageRank and Who-to-Follow (WTF), and show to what extent their ranks produce inequality and inequity when applied to directed social networks. To this end, we propose a directed network model with preferential attachment and homophily (DPAH) and demonstrate the influence of network structure on the rank distributions of these algorithms. Our main findings suggest that (i) inequality is positively correlated with inequity, (ii) inequality is driven by the interplay between preferential attachment, homophily, node activity and edge density, and (iii) inequity is driven by the interplay between homophily and minority size. In particular, these two algorithms reduce, replicate and amplify the representation of minorities in top ranks when majorities are homophilic, neutral and heterophilic, respectively. Moreover, when this representation is reduced, minorities may improve their visibility in the rank by connecting strategically in the network. For instance, by increasing their out-degree or homophily when majorities are also homophilic. These findings shed light on the social and algorithmic mechanisms that hinder equality and equity in network-based ranking and recommendation algorithms.

JANUS: A hypothesis-driven Bayesian approach for understanding edge formation in attributed multigraphs.

Understanding edge formation represents a key question in network analysis. Various approaches have been postulated across disciplines ranging from network growth models to statistical (regression) methods. In this work, we extend this existing arsenal of methods with JANUS, a hypothesis-driven Bayesian approach that allows to intuitively compare hypotheses about edge formation in multigraphs. We model the multiplicity of edges using a simple categorical model and propose to express hypotheses as priors encoding our belief about parameters. Using Bayesian model comparison techniques, we compare the relative plausibility of hypotheses which might be motivated by previous theories about edge formation based on popularity or similarity. We demonstrate the utility of our approach on synthetic and empirical data. JANUS is relevant for researchers interested in studying mechanisms explaining edge formation in networks from both empirical and methodological perspectives.