Efore adopted: Re4EGI-1 web tweets were excluded and Original tweets had been classified as getting Science; Nonscience; Unclear; NonEnglish. Tweets within the NonEnglish category weren’t further analysed; an evaluation by a native speaker could,needless to say,place them in any in the other categories. A typical example of a tweet classified as Science could be: “Margueron: Symmetry energy impacts T,s (but not density) post bounce,but incompressibility parameter does not alter anything. #MICRA”. Nonscience tweets had been these referring to: general conference management; announcements from publishers or exhibitors; messages that focused on climate or the conference atmosphere; these that attempted humour; the (many) that talked about meals and drink; and so on. A standard instance of a tweet classified as Nonscience would be: “DSFD_Conference I heard a rumour of salmon. Quite excited! #DSFD”. A typical example from the Unclear category will be: “Like The Devil ATLASexperiment #LeptonPhoton”. Table contains data on tweet sort for AstroParticle and other conferences. Compared to Other people,a slightly lower proportion of AstroParticle tweets are Original; PubMed ID:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21666516 an alternative way of expressing this is that a slightly greater proportion of AstroParticle tweets wereTable Type of tweet AstroParticle of Original tweets Hyperlink Conversation . ( Original tweets) . ( of Original tweets) . ( of Original tweets) Other individuals . ( Original tweets) . ( of Original tweets) . ( of Original tweets)Note that percentages require not sum to : some tweets are neither conversational nor contain a link,whilst some tweets are conversational in nature and also contain a hyperlink. If retweets are included. of AstroParticle tweets had this dual nature; the figure for Others is .Scientometrics :Table Content material of tweets classified as Original (i.e. AstroParticle tweets and also other tweets) AstroParticle ( of Science tweets of Nonscience tweets of Unclear tweets of NonEnglish tweets . . . . Other ( . . . .retweets. In AstroParticle conferences. of original tweets had been conversational in nature,as defined by inclusion of an sign. This figure is in agreement with earlier research (Honeycutt and Herring ; Boyd et alwhich suggested that about of tweets are conversational in nature. A rather larger proportion of Other tweets had been conversational: . . Similarly,a higher proportion of Other tweets than AstroParticle tweets contained links vs Table consists of data on the content of Original tweets. As could be noticed,the language of tweets is overwhelmingly English. Despite the fact that there’s an inevitable element of subjectivity in classifying tweet content material within this way,it appears clear that AstroParticle tweets are extra likely to focus on scientific difficulties than are tweets from Other conferences. Understanding the underlying supply of this distinction demands additional analysis,however the observations talked about above motivate two tentative ideas that could be explored in more detail within a qualitative study. Very first,delegates at Other conferences appear to make use of Twitter inside a far more conversational manner,and are perhaps therefore much more concerned in working with the service for social uses,than those at AstroParticle conferences. Second,as described within the “Twitter activity at conferences” section,AstroParticle conferences are a lot more most likely to contain delegates that happen to be incredibly active Twitter customers; when the motivation of those delegates is mainly to reside tweet regarding the science becoming discussed in conference presentations then this would support ex.