Toward a Computational Mixed Methods Framework to Measure Online Deliberative Discourse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article proposes and tests a reproducible framework for a computational method to measure social media-based deliberative discourse by analyzing commentary surrounding the Canadian convoy protests of COVID-19 vaccine mandates and restrictions. Employing a combination of analytic calculations, alongside tools such as Google Perspective and Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC), this article assesses the quality of online deliberative discourse using established measures of deliberation including the variables rationality, interactivity, equality, and civility. We propose computational approaches to measuring these variables, and work toward validating our approach by observing correlations between an established computational measure of online deliberation-cognitive complexity. This computational approach is tested using Twitter and Reddit commentary related to the convoy protests that took place in Ottawa, Canada, during February 2022, which influenced the emergence of similar protests around the world. In addition to testing our proposed online deliberative discourse measurement framework, this case study provides insight into the deliberative characteristics of the Twitter and Reddit social media platforms.
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 | 0.099 | 0.240 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".