MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410042513 · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-82896-6_7

Exploring Emerging NLP and Machine Learning Methods in Climate Change Discourse Analysis on Social Media: A Systematic Literature Review

2025· book-chapter· en· W4410042513 on OpenAlexafffund
Hana Ghiloufi, Nicolás Merveille, Sehl Mellouli

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersÉcole de technologie supérieure
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceSocial mediaNatural language processingLinguisticsSentiment analysisComputer scienceWorld Wide WebPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study systematically examines emerging methods, particularly NLP and ML, for analyzing climate change discourse on social media platforms. Within this framework, sub-objectives encompass presenting methodological approaches and identifying prevalent climate change themes, and data sources. As climate change communication has evolved rapidly in the digital age, with social media becoming a pivotal arena for public discourse, opinion dissemination, and information exchange. The intersection of ML and NLP techniques offers unprecedented opportunities to transform vast amounts of unstructured data into valuable information, ready to be consumed by climate policymakers and different stakeholders. Drawing upon a comprehensive review of 56 articles, this study identifies and synthesizes six different methods that are further divided into sub-approaches and techniques, addressing climate change themes and platforms used. This research contributes to the literature by presenting the most used and effective methods and identifying potential areas needing more investigation in the future. It also provides insight into trending themes and overlooked ones, offering best practices and future research directions.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.633
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.161
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSentiment Analysis and Opinion MiningFrench-language works237,207