Word Counts and Trends in the Letter Triggering Article 50

PM Theresa May. Crown Copyright; Open Government Licence.
Photo: Crown Copyright; published under the Open Government Licence.

 

As you know I have an interest in political discourse and communications; I find it interesting to see which terms are used when and how frequently in which contexts.

I’m not sure counting words and calculating a term’s trend in a corpus or document (particularly a brief, contemporary document) tells us anything ‘new’, but it is, at least, a different or alternative way to look into a text, to, let’s say, get into it. It perhaps undresses a text, leaving words naked as quantified signals (or perhaps bricks… that could be used to build something different using the exact same components).

I’m aware I still need to do an update on my Trump Tweets data collection, but in the meanwhile, closer home perhaps, I have deposited on figshare a a CSV file listing counts and trends of 459 terms or word forms in the full text of Prime Minister Theresa May’s letter to Donald Tusk triggering Article 50 (29 March 2017).

Counts and Trends of 459 Terms in ‘Prime Minister’s letter to Donald Tusk triggering Article 50’ (29 March 2017). figshare. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.4801591.v1

English stop words were applied. Text analysis performed with Voyant Tools 2.2, CC BY Stéfan Sinclair & Geoffrey Rockwell (2017).

The data shared is the result of text analysis of a document published on the www.planforbritain.gov.uk website which is is published under the Open Government Licence. The data shared here obeys the terms of that licence.

www.planforbritain.gov.uk is subject to Crown copyright protection unless otherwise indicated. Read the Crown Copyright page on the National Archives website for more information.

A Backward Glance

I become a dumb man.”

– Walt Whitman, 1856

 

How little did I know

about Lazarus’ true feelings

waking up a decade later

dead tired & unable to digest

the universe before him.

A backward glance

does not reveal the past

but the load on neck &

shoulders & the eyes,

the eyes blinded by the light.

¡Levántate, Lázaro! the accent

lacks the strength required

to lift the dead weight towards life.

The singer knew it. The earth

remains jagged and broken–

only to him.

 

 

Libraries! Most Frequent Terms in #WLIC2016 Tweets (part IV)

IFLA World Library and Information Congress 82nd IFLA General Conference and Assembly 13–19 August 2016, Columbus, Ohio, USA
IFLA World Library and Information Congress
82nd IFLA General Conference and Assembly
13–19 August 2016, Columbus, Ohio, USA. Copyright by IFLA, CC BY 4.0.

 


 

This is part IV. For necessary context, methodology, limitations, please see here (part 1),  here (part 2), and here (part 3).

Since this was published and shared for the first time I may have done new edits. I often come back to posts once they have been published to revise them.

Throughout the process of performing the day by day text analysis I became aware of other limitations to take into account and I have revised part 3 accordingly.

Summary

Here’s a summary of the counts of the source (unrefined) #WLIC2016 archive I collected:

Number of Links

12435

Number of RTs estimate based on occurrence of RT

14570

Number of Tweets

23552

Unique Tweets <-used to monitor quality of archive

23421

First Tweet in Archive 14/08/2016 11:29:03 EDT
Last Tweet in Archive 22/08/2016 04:20:53 EDT
In Reply Ids

270

In Reply @s

429

Number of Tweeters

3035

As previously indicated the Tweet count includes RTs. This count might require further deduplication and it might include bots’ Tweets and possibly some unrelated Tweets.

Here’s a summary of the Tweet count of the #WLIC2016  dataset I refined from the complete archive. As I explained in part 3 I organised the Tweets into conference days, from Sunday 14 to Thursday 18 August. Each day was a different corpus to analyse. I also analysed the whole set as a single corpus to ensure the totals replicated.

Day Tweet count
Sunday 14 August 2016

2543

Monday 15 August 2016

6654

Tuesday 16 August 2016

4861

Wednesday 17 August 2016

4468

Thursday 18 August 2016

3801

Thursday – Sunday

22327

 

The Most Frequent Terms

The text analysis involved analysing each corpus, first obtaining a ‘raw’ output of 300 most frequent terms and their counts. As described in previous posts, I then applied an edited English stop words list followed by a manual editing of the top 100 most frequent terms (for the shared dataset) and of the top 50 for this post. Unlike before in this case I removed ‘barack’ and ‘obama’ from Thursday and Monday’s corpora, and tried to remove usernames and hashtags though it’s posssible that further disambiguation and refining might be needed in those top 100 and top 50.

The text analysis of the Sun-Thu Tweets as a single corpus gave us the following Top 50:

#WLIC2016 Sun-Thu Top 50 Most Frequent Terms (stop-words applied; edited)

Rank

Term Count

1

libraries

2895

2

library

2779

3

librarians

1713

4

session

1467

5

access

872

6

world

832

7

public

774

8

copyright

766

9

people

757

10

need

750

11

data

746

12

make

733

13

privacy

674

14

digital

629

15

new

615

16

wikipedia

602

17

indigenous

593

18

use

574

19

information

555

20

great

539

21

knowledge

512

22

literacy

502

23

internet

481

24

work

428

25

thanks

419

26

message

416

27

future

412

28

change

379

29

social

378

30

open

369

31

just

354

32

research

353

33

know

330

34

community

323

35

important

319

36

oclc

317

37

collections

312

38

books

300

39

learn

300

40

opening

291

41

read

289

42

impact

287

43

place

282

44

good

280

45

services

277

46

national

276

47

best

272

48

latest

269

49

report

267

50

users

266

As mentioned above I also analysed each day as a single corpus. I refined the ‘raw’ 300 most frequent terms per day to a top 100 after stop words and manual editing. I then laid them all out as a single table for comparison.

#WLIC2016 Top 50 Most Frequent Terms per Day Comparison (stop-words applied; edited)

Rank

Sun 14 Aug

Mon 15 Aug

Tue 16 Aug

Wed 17 Aug

Thu 18 Aug

1

libraries library library libraries libraries

2

library libraries privacy library library

3

librarians librarians libraries librarians librarians

4

session session librarians indigenous public

5

access copyright session session session

6

world wikipedia people knowledge need

7

public digital data access data

8

copyright make indigenous data impact

9

people world make literacy new

10

need internet access need digital

11

data access wikipedia great world

12

make new use people thanks

13

privacy need information research access

14

digital use world public value

15

new public public new national

16

wikipedia future knowledge marketing change

17

indigenous people copyright general privacy

18

use message homeless open great

19

information collections literacy world work

20

great information oclc archives research

21

knowledge content great just use

22

literacy open homelessness national people

23

internet report need assembly knowledge

24

work space freedom place social

25

thanks trend like make using

26

message great thanks read know

27

future net internet community make

28

change work info social services

29

social neutrality latest reading skills

30

open making experiencing work award

31

just update theft information information

32

research books important use learning

33

know collection just learn users

34

community social subject share book

35

important design change matters user

36

oclc data guidelines key best

37

collections thanks digital know collections

38

books librarian students global academic

39

learn know know government measure

40

opening shaping online life poland

41

read google protect thanks community

42

impact change working important learn

43

place literacy statement development outcomes

44

good just work love share

45

services technology future impact time

46

national online read archivist media

47

best poster award good section

48

latest info create books important

49

report working services cultural service

50

users law good help closing

I have shared on figshare a datset containing the summaries above as well as the raw top 300 most frequent terms for the whole set as well as divided per day. The dataset also includes the top 100 most frequent terms lists per day that I  manually edited after having applied the edited English stop word filter.

You can download the spreadsheet from figshare:

Priego, Ernesto (2016): #WLIC2016 Most Frequent Terms Roundup. figshare.
https://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.3749367.v2

Please bear in mind that as refining was done manually and the Terms tool does not always seem to apply stop words evenly there might be errors. This is why the raw output was shared as well. This data should be taken to be indicative only.

As it is increasingly recommended for data sharing, the CC-0 license has been applied to the resulting output in the repository. It is important however to bear in mind that some terms appearing in the dataset might be licensed individually differently; copyright of the source Tweets -and sometimes of individual terms- belongs to their authors.  Authorial/curatorial/collection work has been performed on the shared file as a curated dataset resulting from analysis, in order to make it available as part of the scholarly record. If this dataset is consulted attribution is always welcome.

Ideally for proper reproducibility and to encourage other studies the whole archive dataset should be available.  Those wishing to obtain the whole Tweets should still be able to get them themselves via text and data mining methods.

Conclusions

Indeed, for us today there is absolutely nothing surprising about the term ‘libraries’ being the most frequent word in Tweets coming from IFLA’s World Library and Information Congress. Looking at the whole dataset, however, provides an insight into other frequent terms used by Library and Information professionals in the context of libraries. These terms might not remain frequent for long, and might not have been frequent words in the past (I can only hypothesise– having evidence would be nice).

A key hypothesis for me guiding this exercise has been that perhaps by looking at the words appearing in social media outputs discussing and reporting from a professional association’s major congress, we can get a vague idea of where a sector’s concerns are/were.

I guess it can be safely said that words become meaningful in context. In an age in which repetition and frequency are key to public constructions of cultural relevance (‘trending topics’ increasingly define the news agenda… and what people talk about and how they talk about things) the repetition and frequency of key terms might provide a type of meaningful evidence in itself.  Evidence, however, is just the beginning– further interpretation and analysis must indeed follow.

One cannot obtain the whole picture from decomposing a collectively, socially, publicly created textual corpus (or perhaps any corpus, unless it is a list of words from the start) into its constituent parts. It could also be said that many tools and methods often tell us more about themselves (and those using them) than about the objects of study.

So far text analysis (Rockwell 2003) and ‘distant reading’ through automated methods has focused on working with books (Ramsay 2014). However I’d like to suggest that this kind of text analysis can be another way of reading social media texts and offer another way to contribute to the assessment of their cultural relevance as living documents of a particular setting and moment in time. Who knows, they might also be telling us something about the present perception and activity of a professional field- and might help us to compare it with those in the future.

Other Considerations

Both research and experience show that the Twitter search API is not 100% reliable. Large Tweet volumes affect the search collection process. The API might “over-represent the more central users”, not offering “an accurate picture of peripheral activity” (González-Bailon, Sandra, et al, 2012).

Apart from the filters and limitations already declared, it cannot be guaranteed that each and every Tweet tagged with #WLIC2016 during the indicated period was analysed. The dataset was shared for archival, comparative and indicative educational research purposes only.

Only content from public accounts, obtained from the Twitter Search API, was analysed.  The source data is also publicly available to all Twitter users via the Twitter Search API and available to anyone with an Internet connection via the Twitter and Twitter Search web client and mobile apps without the need of a Twitter account.

These posts and the resulting dataset contain the results of analyses of Tweets that were published openly on the Web with the queried hashtag; the content of the Tweets is responsibility of the original authors. Original Tweets are likely to be copyright their individual authors but please check individually.

This work is shared to archive, document and encourage open educational research into scholarly activity on Twitter. The resulting dataset does not contain complete Tweets nor Twitter metadata. No private personal information was shared. The collection, analysis and sharing of the data has been enabled and allowed by Twitter’s Privacy Policy. The sharing of the results complies with Twitter’s Developer Rules of the Road.

A hashtag is metadata users choose freely to use so their content is associated, directly linked to and categorised with the chosen hashtag. The purpose and function of hashtags is to organise and describe information/outputs under the relevant label in order to enhance the discoverability of the labeled information/outputs (Tweets in this case). Tweets published publicly by scholars or other professionals during academic conferences are often publicly tagged (labeled) with a hashtag dedicated to the conference in question. This practice used to be the confined to a few ‘niche’ fields; it is increasingly becoming the norm rather than the exception.

Though every reason for Tweeters’ use of hashtags cannot be generalised nor predicted, it can be argued that scholarly Twitter users form specialised, self-selecting public professional networks that tend to observe scholarly practices and accepted modes of social and professional behaviour.

In general terms it can be argued that scholarly Twitter users willingly and consciously tag their public Tweets with a conference hashtag as a means to network and to promote, report from, reflect on, comment on and generally contribute publicly to the scholarly conversation around conferences. As Twitter users, conference Twitter hashtag contributors have agreed to Twitter’s Privacy and data sharing policies.

Professional associations like the Modern Language Association and the American Pyschological Association recognise Tweets as citeable scholarly outputs. Archiving scholarly Tweets is a means to preserve this form of rapid online scholarship that otherwise can very likely become unretrievable as time passes; Twitter’s search API has well-known temporal limitations for retrospective historical search and collection.

Beyond individual Tweets as scholarly outputs, the collective scholarly activity on Twitter around a conference or academic project or event can provide interesting insights for the contemporary history of scholarly communications. Though this work has limitations and might not be thoroughly systematic, it is hoped it can contribute to developing new insights into a discipline’s public concerns as expressed on Twitter over time.

References

González-Bailon, Sandra and Wang, Ning and Rivero, Alejandro and Borge-Holthoefer, Javier and Moreno, Yamir, Assessing the Bias in Samples of Large Online Networks (December 4, 2012).  Available at SSRN: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2185134

Priego, Ernesto (2016) #WLIC2016 Most Frequent Terms Roundup. figshare.
https://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.3749367.v2

Ramsay, Stephen (2014) “The Hermeneutics of Screwing Around; or What You Do with a Million Books.” In Pastplay: Teaching and Learning History with Technology, edited by Kevin Kee, 111-20. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2014. Also available at http://quod.lib.umich.edu/d/dh/12544152.0001.001/1:5/–pastplay-teaching-and-learning-history-with-technology?g=dculture;rgn=div1;view=fulltext;xc=1

Rockwell, Geoffrey (2003) “What is Text Analysis, Really? [PDF]” preprint, Literary and Linguistic Computing, vol. 18, no. 2, 2003, p. 209-219.

What’s in a Word? Most Frequent Terms in #WLIC2016 Tweets (part III)

IFLA World Library and Information Congress 82nd IFLA General Conference and Assembly 13–19 August 2016, Columbus, Ohio, USA
IFLA World Library and Information Congress
82nd IFLA General Conference and Assembly
13–19 August 2016, Columbus, Ohio, USA. Copyright by IFLA, CC BY 4.0.

This is part three. For necessary context please start here (part 1) and here (part 2). The final, fourth part is here.

It’s Friday already and the sessions from IFLA’s WLIC 2016 have finished. I’d like to finish what I started and complete a roundup of my quick (but in practice not-so-quick) collection and text analysis of a sample of #WLIC2016 Tweets. My intention is to finish this with a fourth and final blog post following this one and to share a dataset on figshare as soon as possible.

As previously I customised the spreadsheet settings to collect only Tweets from accounts with at least one follower and to reflect the Congress’ location and time zone. Before exporting as CSV I did a basic automated deduplication, but I did not do any further data refining (which means that non-relevant or spam Tweets may be included in the dataset).

What follows is a basic quantitative summary of the initial complete sample dataset:

  • Total Tweets: 22,540 Tweets (includes RTs)
  • First Tweet in complete sample dataset: Sunday 14/08/2016 11:29:03 EDT
  • Last Tweet in complete sample dataset: Friday 19/08/2016 04:20:43 EDT
  • Number of links:  11,676
  • Number of RTs:    13,859
  • Number of usernames: 2,811

The Congress had activities between Friday 12 August and Friday 19 August, but sessions between Sunday 14 August and Thursday 18 August. Ideally I would have liked to collect Tweets from the early hours of Sunday 14 August but I started collecting late so the earliest I got to was 11:29:03 EDT. I suppose at least it was before the first panel sessions started. For more context re: timings: see the Congress outline.

I refined the complete dataset to include only the days that featured panel sessions, and I have organised the data in a different sheet per day for individual analysis. I have also created a table detailing the Tweet counts per Congress sessions day. [Later I realised that though I had the metadata for the Columbus Ohio time zone I ended up organising the data into GMT/BST days. There is a 5 hours difference but the collected Tweets per day still roughly correspond to the timings of the conference. Of course many will have participated in the hashtag remotely –not present at the event– and many present will have tweeted not synchronically (‘live’).  I don’t think this makes much of a difference (no pun intended) to the analysis, but it’s something I was aware of and that others may or not want to consider as a limitation.

Tweets collected per day

Day Tweet count
Sunday 14 August 2016

2543

Monday 15 August 2016

6654

Tuesday 16 August 2016

4861

Wednesday 17 August 2016

4468

Thursday 18 August 2016

3801

Total Tweets in refined dataset: 22, 327 Tweets.

(Always bear in mind these figures reflect the Tweets in the collected dataset, it does not mean that as a fact that was the total number of Tweets published with the hashtag during that period. Not only does the settings of my querying affects the results; Twitter’s search API also has limitations and cannot be assumed to always return the same type or number of results).

I am still in the process of analysing the dataset. There are of course multiple types of analyses that one could do with this data but bear in mind that in this case I have only focused on using text analysis to obtain the most frequent terms in the text from the Tweets tagged with #WLIC2016 that I collected.

As before, in this case I am using the Terms tool from Voyant Tools to perform a basic text analysis in order to identify number of total words and unique word forms and most frequent terms per day; in other words, the data from each day became an individual corpus. (The complete refined dataset including all collected days could be analysed as a single corpus as well for comparison). I am gradually exporting and collecting the ‘raw’ output from the Terms tool per day, so that once I have finsihed applying the stop words to each corpus this output can be compared and so that it could be reproduced with other stop word lists if desired.

As before I am useing the English stop word list which I edited previously to include Twitter-specific terms (e.g. t.co, amp, https), as well as dataset-specific terms (e.g. the Congress’ Twitter account, related hashtags etc), but this time what I did differently is that I included all the 2,811 account usernames in the complete dataset so they would be excluded from the most frequent terms. These are the usernames from accounts with Tweets in the dataset, but other usernames (that were mentioned in Tweets’ text but that did not Tweet themselves with the hashtag) were logically not filtered, so whenever easily identifiable I am painstakingly removing them (manually!) from the remaining list. I am sure there most be a more effective way of doing this but I find the combination of ‘distant’ (automated) editing and ‘close’ (manual) editing interesting and fun.

I am using the same edited stop word list for each analysis. In this case I have also manually removed non-English terms (mostly pronouns, articles). Needless to say I did this not because I didn’t think they were relevant (quite the opposite) but because even though they had a presence they were not fairly comparable to the overwhelming majority of English terms (a ranking of most frequent non-English terms would be needed). As I will also have shared the unedited, ‘raw’ top most frequent terms in the dataset, anyone wishing to look into the non-English terms could ideally do so and run their own analyses without my own subjective stop word list and editing getting in the way. I tried to be as systematic as possible but disambiguation would be needed (the Terms tool is case and context insensitive, so a term could have been a proper name, or a username, and to be consistent I should have removed those too. Again, having the raw list would allow others to correct any filtering/curation/stop word mistakes).

I am aware there are way more sophisticaded methods of dealing with this data. Personally, doing this type of simple data collection and text analysis is an exercise and an interrogation of data collection and analysis methods and tools as reflective practices. An hypothesis behind it is that the terms a community or discipline uses (and retweets) do say something about those communities or disciplines, at least for a particular moment in time and a particular place in particular settings. Perhaps it also says things about the medium used to express those terms. When ‘screwing around‘ with texts it may be unavoidable to wonder what there is to it beyond ‘bean-counting’ (what’s in a word? what’s in a frequent term?), and what there is to social media and academic/professional live-tweeting that can or cannot be quantified. Doing this type of work makes me reflect as well about my own limitations, the limits of text analysis tools, the appropriateness of tools, the importance of replication and reproducibility and the need to document and to share what has been documented.

I’m also thinking about documentation and the open sharing of data outputs as messages in bottles, or as it has been said of metadata as ‘letters to the future’. I’m aware that this may also seem like navel-gazing of little interest outside those associated to the event in question. I would say that the role of libraries in society at large is more crucial and central than many outside the library and information sector may think (but that’s a subject for another time). Perhaps one day in the future it might be useful to look back at what we were talking about in 2016 and what words we used to talk about it. (Look, we were worried about that!) Or maybe no one cares and no one will care, or by then it will be possible to retrieve anything anywhere with great degrees of relevance and precision (including critical interpretation). In the meanwhile,  I will keep refining these lists and will share the output as soon as I can.

Next… the results!

The final, fourth part is here.

Most Frequent Terms in #WLIC2016 Tweets (part II)

IFLA World Library and Information Congress 82nd IFLA General Conference and Assembly 13–19 August 2016, Columbus, Ohio, USA
IFLA World Library and Information Congress
82nd IFLA General Conference and Assembly
13–19 August 2016, Columbus, Ohio, USA. Copyright by IFLA, CC BY 4.0.

 

The first part of this series provides necessary context.

I have now an edited list of the top 50 most frequent terms extracted from a cleaned dataset comprised of 10,721 #WLIC2016 Tweets published by 1,760 unique users between Monday 15/08/2016 10:11:08 EDT and Wednesday 17/08/2016 07:16:35 EDT.

The analysed corpus contained the raw text of the Tweets (includes RTs), comprising 185,006 total words and 12,418 unique word forms.

Stop words were applied as detailed in the first part of this series, and the resulting list (a raw list of 300 most frequent terms) was further edited to remove personal names, personal Twitter user names, common hashtags, etc.  Some organisational Twitter user names were not removed from the list, as an indication of their ‘centrality’ in the network based on the frequency with which they appeared in the corpus.

So here’s an edited list of the top 50 most frequent terms from the dataset described above:

Term Count
library

1379

libraries

1102

librarians

811

session

715

privacy

555

wikipedia

523

make

484

copyright

465

people

428

digital

378

access

375

use

362

public

340

data

322

need

319

iflabuild2016

308

world

308

information

298

internet

289

new

272

great

259

indigenous

255

iflatrends

240

report

202

knowledge

200

future

187

work

187

libraryfreedom

184

literacy

184

space

180

change

178

thanks

172

oclc

171

open

170

just

169

books

168

trend

165

important

162

info

162

know

162

social

161

net

159

neutrality

159

wikilibrary

158

collections

157

working

157

librarian

154

online

154

making

149

guidelines

148

Is this interesting? Is it useful? I don’t know, but I’ve enjoyed documenting it. Reflecting about different criteria to apply stop words and clean, refine terms has also been interesting.

I guess that deep down I believe it’s better to document than not to, even if we may think there should be other ways of doing it (otherwise I wouldn’t even try to do it). Value judgements about the utility or insightfulness of specific data in specific ways is an a posteriori process.

I hope to be able to continue collecting data and once the congress/conference ends I hope to be able to share a dataset with the raw (unedited, unfiltered) most frequent terms in the text from Tweets published with the event’s hashtag. If there’s anyone else interested they could clean, curate and analyse the data in different ways (wishful thinking but hey; it’s hope what guides us.).

What Library Folk Live Tweet About: Most Frequent Terms in #WLIC2016 Tweets

IFLA World Library and Information Congress 82nd IFLA General Conference and Assembly 13–19 August 2016, Columbus, Ohio, USA
IFLA World Library and Information Congress. Logo copyright by IFLA, CC BY 4.0.

Part 2 is  here, part 3  here and the final, fourth part is here.

IFLA stands for The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions.

The IFLA World Library and Information Congress 2016 and 2nd IFLA General Conference and Assembly, ‘Connections. Collaboration. Community’ is currently taking place (13–19 August 2016) at the Greater Columbus Convention Center (GCCC) in Columbus, Ohio, United States.

The official hashtag of the conference is #WLIC2016. Earlier, I shared a searchable, live archive of the hashtag here. (Page may be slow to load depending on bandwidth).

I have looked at the text from 4,945 Tweets published with #WLIC2016 from 14/08/2016 to 15/08/2016 11:16:06 (EDT, Columbus Ohio time). Only accounts with at least 1 follower were included. I collected them with Martin Hawksey’s TAGS.

According to Voyant Tools this corpus had 82,809 total words and 7,506 unique word forms.

I applied an English stop word list which I edited to include Twitter-specific terms (https, t.co, amp (&) etc.), proper names (Barack Obama, other personal usernames) and some French stop words (mainly personal pronouns). I also edited the stop word list to include some dataset-specific terms such as the conference hashtag and other common hashtags, ‘ifla’, etc. (I left others that could also be considered dataset-specific terms, such as ‘session’ though).

The result was a listing of of 800 frequent terms (the least frequent terms in the list had been repeated 5 times). I then cleaned the data from any dataset-specific stop words that the stop word list did not filter and created an edited ordered listing of the most frequent 50 terms. I left in organisations’ Twitter user names (including @potus), as well as other terms that may not seem that meaningful  on their own (but who knows, they may be).

It must be taken into account the corpus included Retweets; each RT counted as a single Tweet, even if that meant terms were being logically repeated. This means that term counts in the list reflect the fact the dataset contains Retweets (which obviously implies the repetition of text).

If for some reason you are curious about what the most frequent words in #WLIC2016 Tweets were during this initial period (see above), here’s the top 50:

Term Count
libraries

543

copyright

517

librarians

484

library

406

session

374

world

326

message

271

opening

249

access

226

make

204

digital

195

internet

162

future

161

information

157

new

146

use

141

people

138

president

131

potus

125

literacy

118

need

117

oclc

114

ceremony

113

dpla

109

poster

105

thanks

103

collections

102

public

100

delegates

99

cilipinfo

98

countries

95

iflatrends

95

google

93

shaping

91

work

89

drag

83

report

83

create

81

open

81

data

79

content

78

learn

78

latest

77

making

77

fight

76

ifla_arl

75

read

74

info

73

exceptions

69

great

68

So for what it’s worth those were the 5o most frequent terms in the corpus.

I, for one, not being present in the Congress, found it interesting that ‘copyright’ is the second most frequent term, following ‘libraries’. One notices also that, unsurprisingly, the listing of top most frequent terms includes some key terms (such as ‘access’, ‘internet’, ‘digital’, ‘open’, ‘data’) concerning Library and Information professionals of late.

Were these the terms you’d have expected to make a ‘top 50’ in almost 5,000 Tweets from this initial phase of this particular conference?

The conference hasn’t finished yet of course. But so far, for a libraries and information world congress, which terms would you say are noticeable by their absence in this list? ;-)

Part 2 is  here, part 3  here and the final, fourth part is here.