The Computational Thematic Analysis Toolkit
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
As online communities have grown, Computational Social Science has rapidly developed new techniques to study them. However, these techniques require researchers to become experts in a wide variety of tools in addition to qualitative and computational research methods. Studying online communities also requires researchers to constantly navigate highly contextual ethical and transparency considerations when engaging with data, such as respecting their members' privacy when discussing sensitive or stigmatized topics. To overcome these challenges, we developed the Computational Thematic Analysis Toolkit, a modular software package that supports analysis of online communities by combining aspects of reflexive thematic analysis with computational techniques. Our toolkit demonstrates how common analysis tasks like data collection, cleaning and filtering, modelling and sampling, and coding can be implemented within a single visual interface, and how that interface can encourage researchers to manage ethical and transparency considerations throughout their research process.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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