Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 36 references

Topic Modeling and Sentiment Analysis on Japanese Online Media's Coverage of Nuclear Energy

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a combined LDA and GPT-4o pipeline maps Japanese YouTube discourse on nuclear energy into 16 topics with an overall negative sentiment around -0.5, concentrated on government response and treated-water release.

desk verdict Useful descriptive study of Japanese YouTube nuclear discourse, but uncalibrated GPT-4o sentiment bias makes topic-level rankings provisional. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18383 v1 pith:LCZVRD3D submitted 2024-11-27 cs.CL cs.SI

Yifan Sun , Hirofumi Tsuruta , Masaya Kumagai , Ken Kurosaki This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.SI
keywords nuclearenergyYouTubetopicmodelingLDAsentimentanalysisGPT-4oFukushimatreatedwater
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish what Japanese viewers are shown and how they react when official broadcasters cover domestic nuclear energy on YouTube. By fitting a topic model to 3,101 videos and applying a large-language-model sentiment classifier to 72,678 comments, it claims to identify 16 stable topics in the coverage and an overall comment sentiment near -0.5, meaning leaning negative. It further claims that negativity is concentrated on government response and treated-water release, that negative comments about treated water are tied to political words rather than the water itself, and that international watchdog statements and a politician's stunt shifted positive commentary. The authors themselves caution that the sentiment model over-labels neutral comments as negative, so the true overall tone may be closer to neutral. The contribution would matter because topic-level sentiment from social media could supplement conventional polls for nuclear-energy communication.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on three linked tools. Latent Dirichlet Allocation treats each video as a mixture of topics and each topic as a distribution over nouns; the authors chose the 16-topic model by balancing coherence scores with manual inspection of top keywords. GPT-4o with six few-shot examples classifies each comment as positive, neutral/indeterminate, or negative; this is the instrument that produces the -0.5 score and the topic-level sentiment shares. Word co-occurrence networks then expose which nouns travel together inside comments, letting the authors attribute negativity to political vocabulary. The load-bearing step is the chain from video text to topic labels to comment sentiment, because each link's errors propagate to the conclusions.

What would settle it

Re-annotate a stratified sample of 500 to 1,000 comments by topic and month with human judges, correct for the model's measured bias, and recompute the overall and topic-level scores; if the bias-adjusted figure moves from -0.5 to roughly zero, the paper's central claim of persistent online negativity would be an artifact of the classifier.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a YouTube-based pipeline—LDA topic modeling on titles, descriptions, and transcripts, followed by GPT-4o few-shot sentiment classification of comments, then word co-occurrence networks—can map Japanese online discourse on nuclear energy at a topic-level granularity that earlier Twitter and dictionary-based studies lacked. The 16 human-interpreted topics align with real-world events, including the treated-water release, reactor restarts, and earthquake anniversaries. The sentiment analysis finds a persistently negative overall score around -0.5, with government response and treated-water release drawing the most negative comments; the co-occurrence analysis supports the claim that negativity on treated water is politically motivated. The paper also claims that positive comments spiked around international watchdog statements and a surfing politician, which the authors read as evidence that third-party voices and public figures shape online sentiment.

Load-bearing premise

The entire sentiment trend and topic ranking rest on the assumption that the biases measured on 500 hand-labeled comments—especially GPT-4o's habit of calling 50.4% of neutral comments negative—apply uniformly across all 72,678 comments, all 16 topics, and all months.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the 16-topic mapping is correct, official Japanese broadcasters' nuclear coverage is organized around a small, stable set of recurring issues, from accident compensation to evacuation-order lifting.
  • If the sentiment scores are taken at face value, public online reaction to government response and treated-water release is markedly more negative than reaction to earthquake-reflection and recovery topics.
  • If the co-occurrence evidence holds, negative comments about treated water in August and September 2023 were driven more by political opposition than by the discharge itself.
  • If the positive-comment patterns are real, international third-party statements and visible actions by public figures can measurably move online sentiment on nuclear issues.
  • The method offers a way to attach public sentiment to specific news topics at a scale that polling cannot easily reach.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the sentiment model's neutral-to-negative bias is likely uneven across topics, the topic-level ranking should be read as ordinal at best; correcting the bias could reorder which topics look most negative.
  • The dataset covers only 15 official broadcasting stations, so the 'online discourse' mapped here is institutional media discourse plus viewer reaction, not the full YouTube ecosystem of independent pro- and anti-nuclear channels.
  • A testable extension would be to calibrate GPT-4o's outputs on a topic-stratified human sample and recompute monthly sentiment; the -0.5 plateau could turn out to be a stable negative trend or a model artifact.
  • The co-occurrence finding about political vocabulary suggests a follow-up causal test: comparing comments on treated-water videos that mention politicians versus those that do not would clarify whether the political framing actually drives negativity.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents a pipeline for topic modeling and sentiment analysis of Japanese YouTube videos about domestic nuclear energy. Using LDA on 3,101 videos from 15 broadcasters, it derives 16 topics, validates some topic labels via alignment with real-world events, benchmarks five sentiment classifiers on 500 hand-annotated comments, and applies GPT-4o few-shot prompting to 72,678 comments. It reports an overall monthly sentiment around -0.5, topic-level sentiment distributions, and word co-occurrence networks for August and September 2023, concluding that negative comments about the treated-water release are politically motivated and that IAEA references and politician actions correlate with positive comments.

Significance. If the findings hold, the paper offers a useful granular map of an under-studied social media population and a candid benchmark of LLM sentiment biases in Japanese. The topic validation via event spikes is a genuine strength, as is the explicit disclosure of GPT-4o's neutral-to-negative confusion. The main significance is limited by the lack of calibration or sensitivity analysis for the known sentiment bias, which leaves the quantitative headline and the topic-level sentiment rankings unverified. The work is nevertheless a reasonable contribution to applied NLP and computational social science, conditional on addressing the measurement-error concerns.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2.1–§4.2.2, Table 4, Figure 8] The claim in §4.2.2 that comparing sentiment distributions across topics lets the authors 'control for the model's negative bias' is not supported. The benchmark shows GPT-4o misclassifies 50.4% of human-neutral comments as negative, but the 500-comment test set is not stratified by topic or time. Comparing raw percentages across topics removes a constant additive bias only if the misclassification rate is identical across topics and time; the paper provides no evidence for this homogeneity. The approximately -0.5 score and the Figure 8 rankings (Topics 3 and 5 as most negative) therefore depend on an untested assumption. The authors should either calibrate the classifier, report sensitivity bounds obtained by re-labeling neutral comments under different assumptions, or include a stratified error analysis.
  2. [§4.3, Figure 9] The co-occurrence networks are built directly from raw GPT-4o negative/positive labels and inherit the same uncalibrated neutral-to-negative bias. The conclusion that political terms such as 'Jiminto,' 'Government,' and 'Prime Minister' predominantly appear in negative comments could be an artifact if neutral comments mentioning political terms are more likely to be mislabeled as negative than neutral comments about other topics. A simple check would be to repeat the co-occurrence analysis after applying a conservative correction (e.g., treating a random or keyword-stratified subset of model-negative comments as neutral) or to manually inspect a sample of comments containing political terms to confirm their true sentiment.
  3. [§4.1–§4.2.2] The topic-sentiment mapping relies on assigning each video a single 'main topic' as the topic with the highest word count in the document-topic distribution, and then attaching all comments of that video to that topic. This is load-bearing for the topic-level sentiment results in Figure 8, but the paper does not validate that comments actually address the dominant topic of the video. Multi-topic videos, or comments that respond to a secondary topic, could distort the topic-sentiment distributions. A sensitivity check using only comments that mention topic-specific keywords, or a small manual evaluation of comment-topic agreement, would substantially strengthen the paper.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§1] Typo: 'preform' should be 'perform' in the sentence about using LLMs to preform both sentiment analysis and categorization.
  2. [§4.3] Typo: 'pubic understanding' should be 'public understanding' in the paragraph about the IAEA's role.
  3. [Data Availability] The statement that datasets and code are 'available from Y . Sun upon reasonable request' is not a reproducible artifact. The authors should deposit at least the 500-comment benchmark, the topic assignments, and the sentiment labels in a public repository or supplement.
  4. [§4.1] The selection of 16 topics despite the coherence score favoring 5 topics is described as a manual choice based on interpretability, but no inter-annotator agreement or quantitative quality metric for the final 16-topic model is reported. Adding a short validation, even a qualitative rubric applied by multiple annotators, would make the selection more transparent.
  5. [§4.2.2] The sentence 'while the overall tone remains in the negative range, it is closer to neutral' should be rephrased to avoid ambiguity, since the reported -0.5 score is not adjusted for the known bias.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is an empirical measurement pipeline anchored by external human annotations and real-world event correspondences.

full rationale

The paper is an empirical measurement pipeline rather than a derivation. Its two central outputs are the 16 LDA topics and the GPT-4o sentiment scores. The topic count was selected by human interpretability after coherence scoring, but the resulting topic phrases were checked against independent real-world event timing in Table 3 and Figure 5, not against the same keywords used to construct them; this is an external validation, though subjective. The sentiment model was selected and assessed on 500 human-annotated comments with majority-vote labels, providing an external ground truth outside the modeled pipeline. The acknowledged 50.4% neutral-to-negative misclassification is a measurement-bias concern and is explicitly disclosed; the paper even states that the overall tone is 'highly likely ... closer to neutral.' Using the same model to label all comments is not circular because the benchmark supplies independent supervision. No load-bearing step reduces by definition to its inputs, and no prior result by the same authors is invoked to force the conclusions. The statement that comparing raw sentiment shares across topics 'control[s] for the model's negative bias' is statistically fragile if the bias is heterogeneous across topics or time, but that is a validity concern, not a circular reduction. Therefore no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new entities are postulated. The main free parameters are the manually selected topic number and network thresholds. The key unstated assumption is that the sentiment model's bias is uniform across topics and time.

free parameters (3)
  • Number of LDA topics = 16
    Selected by manual inspection of top keywords (Section 4.1), despite coherence scores favoring 5 topics. This hand-chosen K affects all subsequent topic-sentiment mappings.
  • Co-occurrence network node threshold = unspecified
    Only nouns appearing above an unspecified threshold are shown (Section 4.3), which determines which terms appear as 'unique nodes' supporting the political motivation interpretation.
  • Sentiment score thresholds = +/-0.33
    Used by the oseti lexicon (Section 3.2.1), not fitted, but hand-set cutoffs for positive/neutral/negative labels.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption YouTube subtitles accurately represent video content
    Auto-generated transcripts are used for topic modeling, with quality unverified (Section 5 Data Quality).
  • domain assumption A single 'main topic' per video can be identified by highest word count in the document-topic distribution
    Section 4.1: they simplify multi-topic LDA outputs to one main topic to assign comment sentiments, which may misassign sentiment when videos cover multiple issues.
  • domain assumption LDA bag-of-words with nouns only captures meaningful topics
    Section 3.1: noun-only BoW is claimed to improve topic quality, but can discard sentiment-bearing and connective context.
  • domain assumption GPT-4o sentiment labels are reliable enough to compare across topics
    The model has known bias (50.4% of neutral comments labeled negative), yet topic-level sentiment distributions are presented as findings (Figure 8), assuming the bias is similar across topics without evidence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Topic Modeling and Sentiment Analysis on Japanese Online Media's Coverage of Nuclear Energy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LCZVRD3D

@misc{pith2026241118383,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Topic Modeling and Sentiment Analysis on Japanese Online Media's Coverage of Nuclear Energy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LCZVRD3D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18383}
}
read the original abstract

Thirteen years after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident, Japan's nuclear energy accounts for only approximately 6% of electricity production, as most nuclear plants remain shut down. To revitalize the nuclear industry and achieve sustainable development goals, effective communication with Japanese citizens, grounded in an accurate understanding of public sentiment, is of paramount importance. While nationwide surveys have traditionally been used to gauge public views, the rise of social media in recent years has provided a promising new avenue for understanding public sentiment. To explore domestic sentiment on nuclear energy-related issues expressed online, we analyzed the content and comments of over 3,000 YouTube videos covering topics related to nuclear energy. Topic modeling was used to extract the main topics from the videos, and sentiment analysis with large language models classified user sentiments towards each topic. Additionally, word co-occurrence network analysis was performed to examine the shift in online discussions during August and September 2023 regarding the release of treated water. Overall, our results provide valuable insights into the online discourse on nuclear energy and contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of public sentiment in Japan.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18383 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Flowchart illustrating the process to determine public sentiment towards various issues in nuclear energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Monthly distribution of collected videos and viewer comments [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Word cloud generated from the bag-of-words vectors. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Relationship between topic number and coherence score of trained LDA models. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Number of monthly published videos of selected topics. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Confusion matrices of different sentiment analysis models on the benchmark set. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Normalized monthly sentiment scores across all topics. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Percentage of comments assigned each sentiment for all 16 topics. Green: positive, Gray: neutral or [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Word co-occurrence networks constructed from negative and positive comments associated with videos on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Accessed: 2024-11-14; Available from: https://www.enecho.meti.go.jp/about/whitepaper/2021/pdf/2_1.pdf

    Agency for Natural Resources and Energy.国内エネルギー動向 ; 2021. Accessed: 2024-11-14; Available from: https://www.enecho.meti.go.jp/about/whitepaper/2021/pdf/2_1.pdf

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    今後の原子力政策について ; 2022

    Agency for Natural Resources and Energy. 今後の原子力政策について ; 2022. Accessed: 2024-11-14; Available from: https://www.meti.go.jp/shingikai/enecho/denryoku_gas/genshiryoku/pdf/024_ 03_00.pdf

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Accessed: 2024-11-14; Available from: https://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20221213/k10013921151000.html

    NHK.原発運転期間延長などの指針賛成45% 反対37% NHK世論調査 ; 2022. Accessed: 2024-11-14; Available from: https://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20221213/k10013921151000.html

    work page arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Accessed: 2024-11-14; Available from: https://www.asahi.com/articles/ASS2L7SJRS2HUZPS006.html

    The Asahi Shimbun.原発再稼働賛成50% 反対35%を上回る 朝日世論調査 ; 2024. Accessed: 2024-11-14; Available from: https://www.asahi.com/articles/ASS2L7SJRS2HUZPS006.html

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    福島第一原発の処理水放出、賛成58% ; 2023

    The Nikkei. 福島第一原発の処理水放出、賛成58% ; 2023. Accessed: 2024-11-14; Available from: https: //www.nikkei.com/article/DGXZQOUA284690Y3A720C2000000/

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Public opinion changes after the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident to nuclear power generation as seen in continuous polls over the past 30 years

    Kitada A. Public opinion changes after the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident to nuclear power generation as seen in continuous polls over the past 30 years. J Nucl Sci Technol. 2016;53(11):1686–1700

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Topic and Opinion Classification Based Information Credibility Analysis on Twitter

    Ikegami Y , Kawai K, Namihira Y , et al. Topic and Opinion Classification Based Information Credibility Analysis on Twitter. In: 2013 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics; 2013. p. 4676–4681

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Public opinion mining on social media: A case study of Twitter opinion on nuclear power

    Kim D, Kim JW. Public opinion mining on social media: A case study of Twitter opinion on nuclear power. Adv Sci Technol Lett. 2014;51:224–228

    work page 2014

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Positive or negative? Public perceptions of nuclear energy in South Korea: Evidence from Big Data

    Park E. Positive or negative? Public perceptions of nuclear energy in South Korea: Evidence from Big Data. Nucl Eng Technol. 2019;51(2):626–630

    2019

  2. [10]

    Sentiment analysis of nuclear energy-related articles and their comments on a portal site in Rep

    Jeong SY , Kim JW, Kim YS, et al. Sentiment analysis of nuclear energy-related articles and their comments on a portal site in Rep. of Korea in 2010–2019. Nucl Eng Technol. 2021;53(3):1013–1019. 13 Nuclear Energy Topic Modeling and Sentiment Analysis A PREPRINT

    2010

  3. [11]

    Chinese public opinion on Japan’s nuclear wastewater discharge: A case study of Weibo comments based on a thematic model

    Pu X, Jiang Q, Fan B. Chinese public opinion on Japan’s nuclear wastewater discharge: A case study of Weibo comments based on a thematic model. Ocean Coast Manag. 2022;225. 106188

    2022

  4. [12]

    Changing Emotions About Fukushima Related to the Fukushima Nuclear Power Station Accident-How Rumors Determined People’s Attitudes: Social Media Sentiment Analysis

    Hasegawa S, Suzuki T, Yagahara A, et al. Changing Emotions About Fukushima Related to the Fukushima Nuclear Power Station Accident-How Rumors Determined People’s Attitudes: Social Media Sentiment Analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(9):e18662

    2020

  5. [13]

    Sentiment analysis of the United States public support of nuclear power on social media using large language models

    Kwon OH, Vu K, Bhargava N, et al. Sentiment analysis of the United States public support of nuclear power on social media using large language models. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2024;200. 114570

    2024

  6. [14]

    Youtube transcript api ; 2023

    Depoix J. Youtube transcript api ; 2023. Accessed: 2024-11-25; Available from: https://github.com/ jdepoix/youtube-transcript-api

    2023

  7. [15]

    xlm-roberta-base-language-detection ; 2024

    Luca Papariello. xlm-roberta-base-language-detection ; 2024. Accessed: 2024-11-14; Available from: https: //huggingface.co/papluca/xlm-roberta-base-language-detection

    2024

  8. [16]

    More Efficient Topic Modelling Through a Noun Only Approach

    Martin F, Johnson M. More Efficient Topic Modelling Through a Noun Only Approach. In: Proceedings of the Australasian Language Technology Association Workshop 2015; 2015. p. 111–115

    2015

  9. [17]

    An Analysis of Lemmatization on Topic Models of Morphologically Rich Language ; 2019

    May C, Cotterell R, Durme BV . An Analysis of Lemmatization on Topic Models of Morphologically Rich Language ; 2019. Available from: https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.03995

    2019 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Sudachi: a Japanese Tokenizer for Business

    Takaoka K, Hisamoto S, Kawahara N, et al. Sudachi: a Japanese Tokenizer for Business. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018); 2018

    2018

  11. [19]

    Latent Dirichlet Allocation

    Blei DM, Ng AY , Jordan MI. Latent Dirichlet Allocation. J Mach Learn Res. 2003;3(Jan):993–1022

    2003

  12. [20]

    Exploring the Space of Topic Coherence Measures

    Röder M, Both A, Hinneburg A. Exploring the Space of Topic Coherence Measures. In: Proceedings of the Eighth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining; 2015. p. 399–408

    2015

  13. [21]

    oseti ; 2023

    Yukino I. oseti ; 2023. Accessed: 2024-11-25; Available from: https://github.com/ikegami-yukino/ oseti

    2023

  14. [22]

    Collecting Evaluative Expressions for Opinion Extraction

    Kobayashi N, Inui K, Matsumoto Y , et al. Collecting Evaluative Expressions for Opinion Extraction. J Nat Lang Process. 2005;12(3):203–222

    2005

  15. [23]

    Learning Sentiment of Nouns from Selectional Preferences of Verbs and Adjectives,

    Higashiyama M, Inui K, Matsumoto Y . Learning Sentiment of Nouns from Selectional Preferences of Verbs and Adjectives,. In: Proceedings of the 14th Annual Meeting of the Association for Natural Language Processing

  16. [24]

    Attention Is All You Need ; 2023

    Vaswani A, Shazeer N, Parmar N, et al. Attention Is All You Need ; 2023. Available from:https://arxiv.org/ abs/1706.03762

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    bert-japanese-finetuned-sentiment ; 2022

    Takami K. bert-japanese-finetuned-sentiment ; 2022. Accessed: 2024-11-24; Available from: https:// huggingface.co/koheiduck/bert-japanese-finetuned-sentiment

    2022

  18. [26]

    bert-finetuned-japanese-sentiment ; 2023

    Phu C. bert-finetuned-japanese-sentiment ; 2023. Accessed: 2024-11-24; Available from: https:// huggingface.co/christian-phu/bert-finetuned-japanese-sentiment

    2023

  19. [27]

    Language Models are Few-Shot Learners ; 2020

    Brown TB, Mann B, Ryder N, et al. Language Models are Few-Shot Learners ; 2020. Available from: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2005.14165

    2020 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Sentiment Analysis in the Era of Large Language Models: A Reality Check ; 2023

    Zhang W, Deng Y , Liu B, et al. Sentiment Analysis in the Era of Large Language Models: A Reality Check ; 2023. Available from: https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.15005

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Sentiment Analysis in the Age of Generative AI

    Krugmann JO, Hartmann J. Sentiment Analysis in the Age of Generative AI. Cust Needs Solut. 2024;11. 3

    2024

  22. [30]

    SentimentGPT: Exploiting GPT for Advanced Sentiment Analysis and its Departure from Current Machine Learning ; 2023

    Kheiri K, Karimi H. SentimentGPT: Exploiting GPT for Advanced Sentiment Analysis and its Departure from Current Machine Learning ; 2023. Available from: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.10234

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Can ChatGPT Understand Too? A Comparative Study on ChatGPT and Fine-tuned BERT ; 2023

    Zhong Q, Ding L, Liu J, et al. Can ChatGPT Understand Too? A Comparative Study on ChatGPT and Fine-tuned BERT ; 2023. Available from: https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.10198

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Nuclear energy: Twitter data mining for social listening analysis

    Zarrabeitia-Bilbao E, Jaca-Madariaga M, Rio-Belver RM, et al. Nuclear energy: Twitter data mining for social listening analysis. Soc Netw Anal Min. 2023;13. 29

    2023

  25. [33]

    原子力に関する世論調査（2022 年度）調査結果 ; 2022

    Japan Atomic Energy Relations Organization. 原子力に関する世論調査（2022 年度）調査結果 ; 2022. Accessed: 2024-11-13; Available from: https://www.jaero.or.jp/_files/poll/tyousakenkyu2022/ results_2022.pdf

    2022

  26. [34]

    Relationships Among Tweets Related to Radiation: Visualization Using Co-Occurring Networks

    Yagahara A, Hanai K, Hasegawa S, et al. Relationships Among Tweets Related to Radiation: Visualization Using Co-Occurring Networks. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2018;4(1):e26. 14 Nuclear Energy Topic Modeling and Sentiment Analysis A PREPRINT

    2018

  27. [35]

    Twitter Reaction to Events Often at Odds with Overall Public Opinion ; 2013

    Mitchell A, Hitlin P. Twitter Reaction to Events Often at Odds with Overall Public Opinion ; 2013. Accessed: 2024-11-25; Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/2013/03/04/ twitter-reaction-to-events-often-at-odds-with-overall-public-opinion/

    2013

  28. [36]

    Tweeting disaster: an analysis of online discourse about nuclear power in the wake of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident

    Li N, Akin H, Su LYF, et al. Tweeting disaster: an analysis of online discourse about nuclear power in the wake of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident. J Sci Commun. 2016;15(5). A02. 15

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.