Social Media Advocacy for SDG 5 in the Middle East: Insights from Egypt, Tunisia, and Jordan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores how government organizations in Egypt, Tunisia, and Jordan use Facebook (FB) to advocate for the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 5 (SDG 5). Guided by the Dragonfly Advocacy Model for evaluating social media advocacy and using CrowdTangle for FB content analysis, researchers analyzed advocacy efforts over eight and a half years, nearly midway through the planned implementation timeframe of the SDGs. Findings show that the SDG 5 targets most advocated by all three countries were those for women’s empowerment, eliminating violence, ending child marriage, and Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). “Reproductive health,” “technology,” and “unpaid work”’ were among the lowest-mentioned terms. Videos, animation, and influencers were key factors contributing to the effectiveness of FB posts. Gender inequities identified in these Middle Eastern countries, like FGM, honor killings, and inheritance rights, stood in contrast with Western concerns about abortion rights, access to contraception, flexible work arrangements, and digital inclusion.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".