ArticlePloS one2026
Self-positioning in space science communication: A corpus-assisted discourse study.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study incorporates text mining into critical discourse analysis to examine how government science agencies in China and the United States position themselves in space science communication on social media. Two specialized corpora have been built by collecting posts from government science agencies on Weibo from China and X (formerly Twitter) from the U.S. With the help of the text mining tool KH Coder, this study gives a corpus-assisted discourse analysis of the particular ways of positioning at different levels of discourse: (1) topics/themes, (2) addressing terms, and (3) those words that co-occur with self-addressing terms in a sentence. The findings reveal significant differences in their preferential ways of positioning. Chinese government science agencies present themselves as state-affiliated yet approachable institutions, blending achievements and operational efficiency with patriotism and collective pride. Their use of diverse addressing terms and co-occurrence patterns portrays them as experienced, supportive guides, balancing national identity with interpersonal closeness. In contrast, U.S. government science agencies emphasize professionalism, focusing on research, space exploration, mission execution, and audience engagement, with minimal reference to state affiliation. Their addressing terms are formal and standardized, with pride centred on mission success and discovery, highlighting expertise and scientific leadership. Their preferential ways of positioning are further explained in their respective contexts in order to present a proper understanding of these differences.
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.