Representations of Inuit Issues on X (Twitter): Who is Framing Inuit Issues and How?
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
An advance online version of this article was first published September 2024.This article documents who speaks about Inuit issues on social media and how these issues are portrayed on social media. By drawing on data from the Twitter (now X) platform, we analyzed the most relayed messages posted about Inuit issues from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2022. We performed a content analysis in order to explore the tonality (through sentiment analysis) and the topics (through topic modelling) of the posts referring to Inuit issues. Inuit users on X formed a small but dynamic contingent, succeeding in playing a central role in defining Inuit issues on the platform. Their popularity could be partially credited to the positivity of their messages. The rare overlap of topics between Inuit and non-Inuit users on X points to the challenge of Inuit users reaching non-Inuit allies. We conclude that non-Inuit allies could do more to relay Inuit priorities and messages on the platform.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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