MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389307200 · doi:10.1007/s43621-023-00170-6

Twitter conversations on sustainable development goals in Brazilian public universities using natural language processing

2023· article· en· W4389307200 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDiscover Sustainability · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMedia and Communication Studies
Canadian institutionsHEC MontréalPolytechnique Montréal
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
KeywordsSubject (documents)Social mediaSustainable developmentPeriod (music)MicrobloggingPolitical sciencePublic relationsComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study aims to provide insight into the behavior of Twitter conversations related to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by Brazilian public universities (UPBs) using Natural Language Processing (NLP). To achieve this goal, it was decided to develop descriptive research as it explores the characteristics of conversations focused on Twitter, one of the world's most used social media channels. Natural language processing (NLP) techniques based on the R programming language were used to extract and treat conversations held by the UPBs about the SDG objectives on Twitter. The study period is comprised of the creation of the first Twitter account by the universities until the data collection date, that is, between 2008 and 2022, therefore, 15 years of study, during this period, 326,114 tweets were identified. Evidence points to a substantial evolution in tweet publications by universities over the 15 years of studies. Thus, the practically zero publications in 2008 jumped to more than 15 thousand tweets in 2020. These findings show and confirm that universities use this social media to interact with their stakeholders. In addition, the results indicate that the analyzed universities make few publications on their Twitter about SDGs. In fact, of the 46 universities, only 6 tweeted about the subject, representing 13%. During the 15 years of studies, only 31 tweets were made on the subject. We found that the conversations and positions of universities on this subject in their social networks are few, insufficient, timid, and weak. As a second practical implication of this study, universities as centers of research, knowledge construction, and humanistic training urgently need to position themselves more on this subject in their social networks in order to demonstrate the relevance of the subject and inform about their accomplishments, and the need to everyone got involved in the theme.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.149
Threshold uncertainty score0.840

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.325 · 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