对比社交广告与公开帖子，揭示气候话语的差异与机制
Paid Voices vs. Public Feeds: Interpretable Cross-Platform Theme-Based Analysis of Climate Discourse
- 用大模型自动发现主题，无需预设标签库
- 广告侧重解决方案宣传，帖子多批判系统性危机
- 框架可推广至不同平台的话语分析，适合政策研究者
气候网络话语塑造公众认知并影响政策讨论，但其分布于结构迥异的平台：付费广告平台由机构主导、定向传播，而公共社交媒体则以用户自发讨论为主。我们对2024年7月至2025年9月期间Meta（原Facebook）上的气候广告与Bluesky上的公开帖子进行对比分析。为此，构建了一个可解释的主题发现流程，通过语义相似性聚类文本，并利用大语言模型（LLMs）为聚类生成简洁、人类可读的主题标签，无需预先定义主题清单或种子集。基于这些主题，发现两类环境存在系统性差异：广告以正式、面向未来的口吻聚焦特定解决方案的推广，而公众讨论则以危机导向、科学为基础，强调系统性批判。我们还通过立场预测和主题引导检索任务评估了所发现主题的实用性。尽管本研究聚焦气候传播，该框架可泛化至异构传播环境间的比较主题分析。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Climate discourse online shapes public understanding of climate change and informs political and policy debate, yet it unfolds across structurally different environments: paid advertising platforms host targeted, institutionally produced messaging, while public social media reflects largely organic, user-driven discussion. We present a comparative analysis of climate discourse across paid advertisements on Meta (previously Facebook) and public posts on Bluesky from July 2024 to September 2025. To support it, we develop an interpretable thematic discovery pipeline that clusters texts by semantic similarity and uses large language models (LLMs) to label clusters with concise, human-interpretable themes, requiring no predefined topic inventory or seed set. Using these themes, we find the two environments diverge systematically: paid advertising centers on strategic promotion of specific solutions in a formal, forward-looking register, whereas organic discourse centers on systemic critique in a crisis-oriented, scientifically grounded one. We also evaluate the utility of the discovered themes through downstream stance prediction and theme-guided retrieval tasks. While our analysis focuses on climate communication, the framework generalizes to comparative thematic analysis across heterogeneous communication environments.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品；中文卡片由大模型生成，请以原文为准。