ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2026
Automating the analysis of public saliency and attitudes toward biodiversity from digital media.
Article in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automating the analysis of public saliency and attitudes toward biodiversity from digital media.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026Article
- New opportunities and challenges for conservation evidence synthesis from advances in natural language processing.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Measuring public attitudes toward wildlife provides crucial insights into human relationships with nature and helps monitor progress toward Global Biodiversity Framework targets. Yet, conducting such assessments at a global scale presents challenges. Digital news and social media offer a rich record of public discourse, but extracting information about attitudes toward wildlife from these sources is not straightforward. Selecting effective search terms is complicated by differences between everyday names for taxa and their scientific or formal common names, and raw news and social media data are often cluttered with irrelevant content and syndicated articles. To address search term selection, we used a folk taxonomy approach that derives recognizable species groupings from shared common name endings. We identified syndicated articles by using cosine similarity on term frequency-inverse document frequency vectors. To filter out irrelevant content while minimizing the need for corpus-specific annotation and model training, we developed a 2-stage relevance filter that uses unsupervised learning to reveal common topics and an open-source zero-shot large language model (LLM) to assign topics to article titles and estimate relevance. We conducted sentiment, topic, and volume analyses on the resulting data. To illustrate our method, we examined news and X posts containing search terms for bats, pangolins, elephants, and gorillas from 2019 through 2021, a period that covers the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Up to 62% of articles containing bat search terms were unrelated to bats as wildlife, underscoring the importance of relevance filtering. News articles mentioning horseshoe bats, initially implicated in the outbreak, increased significantly in January 2020, with significant sentiment shifts in news and X posts mentioning horseshoe bats emerging later (October 2020). Our methods provide a practical application of modern, general-purpose natural language processing (NLP) tools, including LLMs, for analyzing public perceptions of biodiversity relative to current events or conservation outreach and marketing campaigns.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.