MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409985521 · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3566014

Voices of People With Disabilities: Integrating Topic Modeling and Sentiment Analysis to Study Disability Discourse on Social Media

2025· article· en· W4409985521 on OpenAlexafffund
Richard K. Lomotey, Sandra Kumi, Christian Nyaku, Ralph Deters

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicComputational and Text Analysis Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersUniversity of SaskatchewanPennsylvania State University
KeywordsSocial mediaSentiment analysisComputer scienceSocial model of disabilityNatural language processingWorld Wide WebPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

People with Disability (PwD) are some of society’s marginalized and vulnerable groups. They are mostly disadvantaged because accessibility to communal structures and social services remains challenging. Sometimes, PwDs are misunderstood because not all disabilities are visible or outward, which makes it difficult to implement useful interventions for them. Thus, the voices of PwDs, as expressed freely on social media must be studied to understand better the fundamental challenges they face. In this research, we analyze the comments expressed in Disability communities on Reddit in the last 5 years (from 2019 to 2024) to uncover the concerns and sentiments of PwDs. Comments were collected through the Reddit API from 4 Disability subreddits, namely r/ADHD, r/Blind, r/deaf, and r/disability. Overall, a total of 601,215 comments were extracted for analysis. We applied topic modeling algorithms, namely Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA), Non-negative Matrix Factorization (NMF), and two variations of BERTopic (BERTopic with K-means clustering and BERTopic with HDBSCAN clustering) on each subreddit’s comments to extract hidden topics. The NMF discovered 15 topics in the r/Blind and 20 topics in the r/deaf. Furthermore, related topics were merged into themes, and we discovered 9 themes in both r/ADHD and r/Blind, 8 themes in r/deaf, and 7 themes in r/disability. Additionally, a pre-trained transformer, SiEBERT, was used to determine the sentiments for the themes in each subreddit. The themes discovered across at least 2 subreddits are Mobility, Diagnosis, Education, Assistive and Accessible Technology, Support, Disability Accommodations, and Relations. PwD with ADHD struggle with the effects of medications, household chores, sleep, attention span, and oversubscribing to online payment services. The PwD who are visually impaired feel alienated by society, struggle with public transit systems, have limited employment, and experience harassment. Those with difficulty hearing express difficulty with hearing devices, educational materials, technological challenges, limited workplace accommodations, and bad treatment from people. Our research discussed the themes and provided recommendations where applicable.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.386 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicComputational and Text Analysis MethodsFrench-language works237,207