MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412411851 · doi:10.31603/bishss.91

Analysis of public awareness on global warming: Forecasting using Google Trends and FB prophet

2024· article· en· W4412411851 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joko Handoyo, Indra Gunawan, S.T.M.T. Jatmiko

Bibliographic record

VenueBIS Humanities and Social Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicComputational and Text Analysis Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlobal warmingEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyGeographyClimatologyClimate changeOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Global warming is a world problem that must be solved jointly by all countries in the world. Public awareness of global warming shows a decreasing trend over time, as shown in the global community's search results for the keyword global warming which tends to decrease in number. So, research must be carried out to find out the causes of the decline in global public awareness of this issue. This research aims to predict several keywords related to global warming and try to find the reasons why world public awareness tends to continue to decline. This research uses Google Trends to retrieve the dataset and uses the FB prophet model as a forecasting algorithm in machine learning. The research results show that the trend in people's searches for the keyword "global warming" will tend to decline over the next year. Another finding is that there are contradictory keywords on Google Trends that tend to increase, namely "evidence of global warming" and "why climate change is fake". The MAPE (Mean Average Percentage Error) score for the two contradictory keywords is 0.16 and 0.15. Another finding is, if the search dataset on Google Trends has a high fluctuating number of searches, additional columns can be added to the dataset by using the max function to combine several related keywords to retrieve the highest number of searches. Added max column can increase MAPE score in forecasting results. The MAPE score in the max column is 0.159. Another finding was that contradictory keywords on Google Trends came from South Africa, America, Australia, the Philippines, England, Canada, Vietnam, and India.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.279
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.145 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBIS Humanities and Social ScienceSame topicComputational and Text Analysis MethodsFrench-language works237,207