MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415387029 · doi:10.1177/21582440251381779

Twitter Analysis of Collective Action of OECD Countries Against Climate Crises

2025· article· en· W4415387029 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Esra Tunçay, Sezgin SAVAŞ

Bibliographic record

VenueSAGE Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollective actionClimate changeStakeholderClimate policyCorporate governanceSocial network analysisTransparency (behavior)Global climate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A crisis is conceptually defined as an unexpected situation requiring an urgent solution. The global climate crisis is especially significant, threatening the stability and livability of the world. Building on this conceptual framework, this study aims to explore the dimensions of stakeholder interactions to highlight the need for collective efforts to combat the climate crisis. Twitter (now known as X) interactions between climate and environment ministries in OECD countries were analyzed in R using graph theory. The study found that the United States ministry was the most followed. As the largest network node, Canada acts as both a gateway and hub. As a central player, Canada receives and disseminates information and possesses a high potential for interaction. France is connected to influential nodes and is therefore a leader in the chain of influence. Germany is a strong center of stability and acts as a leader/bridge node. Norway, Spain, and Greece are considered to be peripheral nodes. Furthermore, the network had a medium-strength community structure divided into four parts. These results highlight that interactions among OECD countries are insufficient and that climate and environment ministries can facilitate global cooperation to combat the climate crisis. Strengthening nodal connections is a recommended policy step to translate these results to real-life and industry-specific contexts.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.465
Threshold uncertainty score0.792

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.359 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAGE OpenSame topicSocial Media and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207