Capturing Dynamics in Online Public Discourse: A Case Study of Universal Basic Income Discussions on Reddit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Societal change is often driven by shifts in public opinion. As citizens evolve in their norms, beliefs, and values, public policies change too. While traditional opinion polling and surveys can outline the broad strokes of whether public opinion on a particular topic is changing, they usually cannot capture the full multi-dimensional richness and diversity of opinion present in a large heterogeneous population. However, an increasing fraction of public discourse about public policy issues is now occurring on online platforms, which presents an opportunity to measure public opinion change at a qualitatively different scale of resolution and context. In this paper, we present a conceptual model of observed opinion change on online platforms and apply it to study public discourse on Universal Basic Income (UBI) on Reddit throughout its history. UBI is a periodic, no-strings-attached cash payment given to every citizen of a population. We study UBI as it is a clearly-defined policy proposal that has recently experienced a surge of interest through trends like automation and events like the COVID-19 pandemic. We find that overall stance towards UBI on Reddit significantly declined until mid-2019, when this historical trend suddenly reversed and Reddit became substantially more supportive. Using our model, we find the most significant drivers of this overall stance change were shifts within different user cohorts, within communities that represented similar affluence levels, and within communities that represented similar partisan leanings. Our method identifies nuanced social drivers of opinion change in the large-scale public discourse that now regularly occurs online, and could be applied to a broad set of other important issues and policies.
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 | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".