Social media and social impact assessment: Evolving methods in a shifting context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Among many by-products of Web 2.0 come the wide range of potential image and text datasets within social media and content sharing platforms that speak of how people live, what they do, and what they care about. These datasets are imperfect and biased in many ways, but those flaws make them complementary to data derived from conventional social science methods and thus potentially useful for triangulation in complex decision-making contexts. Yet the online environment is highly mutable, and so the datasets are less reliable than censuses or other standard data types leveraged in social impact assessment. Over the past decade, we have innovated numerous methods for deploying Instagram datasets in investigating management or development alternatives. This article synthesizes work from three Canadian decision contexts - hydroelectric dam construction or removal; dyke realignment or wetland restoration; and integrating renewable energy into vineyard landscapes - to illustrate some of the methods we have applied to social impact assessment questions using Instagram that may be transferrable to other social media platforms and contexts: thematic (manual coding, machine vision, natural language processing/sentiment analysis, statistical analysis), spatial (hotspot mapping, cultural ecosystem modeling), and visual (word clouds, saliency mapping, collage). We conclude with a set of cautions and next steps for the domain.
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 | 0.052 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".