MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412748883 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0326936

Investigating the impact of social media images on users’ sentiments towards sociopolitical events based on deep artificial intelligence

2025· article· en· W4412748883 on OpenAlexaff
Nafiseh Jabbari Tofighi, Reda Alhajj

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial mediaSentiment analysisPublic opinionBig dataSocial movementArtificial intelligenceComputer sciencePolitical sciencePoliticsWorld Wide WebLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the findings of the research aimed at investigating the influence of visual content, posted on social media in shaping users' sentiments towards specific sociopolitical events. The study analyzed various sociopolitical topics by examining posts containing relevant hashtags and keywords, along with their associated images and comments. Using advanced machine learning and deep learning methods for sentiment analysis, textual data were classified to determine the expressed sentiments. Additionally, the correlation between posted visual content and user sentiments has been studied. A particular emphasis was placed on understanding how these visuals impact users' attitudes toward the events. The research resulted in a comprehensive dataset comprising labeled images and their comments, offering valuable insights into the dynamics of public opinion formation through social media. This study investigates the influence of social media images on user sentiment toward sociopolitical events using deep learning-based sentiment analysis. By analyzing posts from movements such as Black Lives Matter, Women's March, Climate Change Protests, and Anti-war Demonstrations, we identified a strong correlation between visual content and public sentiment. Our results reveal that Anti-war Demonstrations exhibit the highest correlation (PLCC: 0.709, SROCC: 0.723), while Climate Change Protests display the lowest alignment (PLCC: 0.531, SROCC: 0.611). Overall, the study finds a consistent positive correlation (PLCC range: 0.615-0.709, SROCC: 0.611-0.723) across movements, indicating the significant role of visual content in shaping the public opinion.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.727
Threshold uncertainty score0.476

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.242 · 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.

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicSentiment Analysis and Opinion MiningFrench-language works237,207