MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135500051 · doi:10.5539/ijms.v13n1p69

Public Emotional Response on the Black Lives Matter Movement in the Summer of 2020 as Analyzed Through Twitter

2021· article· en· W3135500051 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Laura Patnaude, Carolina Vásquez Lomakina, A. Patel, Gulhan Bizel

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Marketing Studies · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial mediaPublic opinionFocus (optics)Sentiment analysisKey (lock)Mobile appsAdvertisingPublic relationsPolitical sciencePsychologyMarketingBusinessComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceWorld Wide WebLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rapid growth of social media platforms and mobile technology presents the opportunity to analyze the sentiments Tweets express. For this paper, Twitter will be the focus of study related to Black Lives Matter throughout the summer of 2020. In addition, the language and sentiment at that particular time are evaluated to uncover public opinion and track how it changed throughout a season. Although a tweet may be classified as positive or negative, there are key terms and tones used with both classifications. By understanding what makes a tweet positive or negative, the root of public opinion can be identified.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.197
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.114
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Marketing StudiesSame topicSocial Media and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207