Image Content Analysis for Social Media Public Opinion Monitoring and Response Strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the widespread use of social media, the formation and dissemination speed of online public opinion has accelerated, and the influence of public opinion events has become increasingly significant.Traditional public opinion monitoring methods mainly rely on text analysis.However, in the context of social media, multimedia content such as images and videos has become an important carrier of public opinion dissemination.Images not only convey emotional information in a direct manner but also play a key role in public opinion events.Therefore, image-based public opinion monitoring has become a research hotspot and a challenge.Existing studies mainly focus on text analysis, with insufficient in-depth analysis of image content, and there are certain limitations in areas such as semantic understanding and sentiment orientation judgment.This paper aims to explore how to enhance the accuracy of social media public opinion monitoring and response strategies through image content analysis.Firstly, the paper analyzes the shortcomings of traditional public opinion monitoring methods in terms of semantic usage and proposes improvement ideas.Secondly, an image content analysis model for social media public opinion monitoring is constructed, using deep learning and other technologies to extract emotional and social inclination information from images.Finally, based on the results of image content analysis, response strategies for social media public opinion are proposed, providing theoretical support and practical guidance for public opinion management and crisis response.This study not only addresses the shortcomings of existing methods and improves the accuracy of public opinion monitoring but also provides feasible suggestions for responding to social media public opinion, offering significant application value.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".