MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413756843 · doi:10.31235/osf.io/vrjxc_v1

“Friends” of Science? Critically analysing the multimodal discourse of a long-standing climate denial front group on Instagram

2025· article· en· W4413756843 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Caroline Gardam

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRadio, Podcasts, and Digital Media
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDenialFront (military)Group (periodic table)PsychologySociologyPolitical scienceGeographyMeteorologyChemistryPsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Problematic climate information affects public support for mitigation policies. Frequently distributed through a powerful coalition of contrarian actors—the climate change counter movement (CCCM)—it undermines scientific evidence to protect vested interests through ongoing promotional campaigns. On social media, image-based climate misinformation often outperforms verified content. Instagram, with its multimodal vernacular, is a crucial platform for climate misinformation research. In this paper, a novel, visual-first exploratory method combines unsupervised machine learning with multimodal critical discourse analysis. I employ a custom computational tool, the ‘Image Machine, to identify dominant visual signatures and discursive themes in a dataset of 15,000 Instagram posts, collected via hashtags representing climate denial discourse.Cluster analysis reveals a distinct visual signature that represents the branding logics of established contrarian front group, Friends of Science Society (FoS). Through multimodal critical discourse analysis of a visual cluster and representative post case study, this research interrogates the discursive strategies and climate denial rhetoric of FoS that—through deliberate intertextual, multimodal tactics that exploit Instagram’s affordances—aim to confound public climate science knowledge. Findings situate FoS firmly in the role of front group within the denial machine, instrumentally using climate denial as a rhetorical and discursive strategy to support Canada’s fossil fuel interests.Funded by fossil interests, FoS exploits signature visuality to solidify contrarian narratives and reinforce its brand. In documenting individuals and organisations implicit in the FoS funding structure, this research contributes to scholarship about the CCCM, as well introduces a novel methodology to ascribe multimodal—particularly, visual—means for detecting problematic climate information.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.011
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.343 · 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.

Study designQualitative
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 topicRadio, Podcasts, and Digital MediaFrench-language works237,207