The Lens of the Other: Instagram as a Tool to Counter the Unsafe Images of Countries and the Case of Lebanon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The emergence of new media tools and social media platforms over the last ten years has created new means of intercultural engagement. On Instagram, there is a growing trend of travel pages and travel bloggers whose aim is to introduce and share with other users the highlights of the destinations they travel to. This also applies to locals in these destinations who wish to portray their country positively and promote it as a tourist destination, particularly in certain countries of the Middle East where there is the added challenge of an ‘unsafe’ image to combat. This research focuses on Lebanon to find out to what extent Instagram can be considered a tool to combat the ‘unsafe’ image of the country, and if users who come across depictions of Lebanon on Instagram perceive the country as a potential tourist destination. Using a mixed methods approach, this thesis combines surveys and semi-structured interviews with Canadian participants to reach its findings. Its theoretical framework makes use of Edward Said’s conception of the ‘other’ (1978), Stuart Hall’s system of representations (1980), Jan Neverdeen Pieterse’s hybridization paradigm (1996), and Eli Pariser’s (2011) echo chamber to analyze its findings. Broadly, findings show that while Instagram can effectively be considered a tool to counter the ‘unsafe’ image of Lebanon, and while the country may be branded as a potential tourist destination to users who come across such depictions of it, algorithm restrictions limit the potential for such depictions to fulfill their potential since they don’t always reach users who perceive Lebanon to be an ‘unsafe’ place.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".