Twitter Als Basis Wissenschaftlicher Studien 2016
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-658-14414-2_6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Forschung mit Twitter – abschließende Bewertung

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(2 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…, 2014). In his study on suitability of Twitter as a data basis for scientific work, Pfaffenberger (2016) argue that Twitter is an interesting and noteworthy source of data (Pfaffenberger, 2016), which makes it an important tool for many kinds of data analysis (Stieglitz et al. , 2018).…”
Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…, 2014). In his study on suitability of Twitter as a data basis for scientific work, Pfaffenberger (2016) argue that Twitter is an interesting and noteworthy source of data (Pfaffenberger, 2016), which makes it an important tool for many kinds of data analysis (Stieglitz et al. , 2018).…”
Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…, 2018). Its unrestricted and rapid communication allows detailed insights into the interests, opinions and moods of users, important factors influencing personality (Pfaffenberger, 2016). According to Twitter, the NBA was the most tweeted-about sports league in 2018.…”
Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning
confidence: 99%