From Speech to Feed: How Parliamentary Debates Shape Party Agendas on Social Media
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
Abstract Social media has become an increasingly important tool for parties to set issues on the political agenda. However, its rapid rise raises questions about the role of traditional venues such as parliaments. This study hypothesizes that parties strategically choose to initiate issues in parliamentary debates instead of on social media to establish dominance through real‐time discussions. Consequently, only after these issues are introduced and debated in parliament do parties use digital platforms like social media to reinforce them on the political agenda. Analyzing over 430,000 parliamentary speeches and 240,000 Facebook posts by parties in Australia, Belgium, Canada, Croatia, and the UK, from 2010 to 2022, the study reveals that issues discussed in parliamentary debates—primarily those raised by opposition parties—typically do not initially emerge on social media but only attract online attention after being introduced in parliament. These findings offer new insights into the strategic decisions of parties in agenda‐setting.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it