Understanding Public Opinions from Geosocial Media
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasingly, social media data are linked to locations through embedded GPS coordinates. Many local governments are showing interest in the potential to repurpose these firsthand geo-data to gauge spatial and temporal dynamics of public opinions in ways that complement information collected through traditional public engagement methods. Using these geosocial data is not without challenges since they are usually unstructured, vary in quality, and often require considerable effort to extract information that is relevant to local governments’ needs from large data volumes. Understanding local relevance requires development of both data processing methods and their use in empirical studies. This paper addresses this latter need through a case study that demonstrates how spatially-referenced Twitter data can shed light on citizens’ transportation and planning concerns. A web-based toolkit that integrates text processing methods is used to model Twitter data collected for the Region of Waterloo (Ontario, Canada) between March 2014 and July 2015 and assess citizens’ concerns related to the planning and construction of a new light rail transit line. The study suggests that geosocial media can help identify geographies of public perceptions concerning public facilities and services and have potential to complement other methods of gauging public sentiment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it