ambacti
Explore workflows

COMMUNITY RESEARCH · Workflow idea

Understand what people are discussing without reducing their views to a score.

For a permitted research or moderation purpose, organize selected public posts and comments into tentative tone, topic, and urgency notes. Preserve source links and relevant context, minimize personal identifiers, and explain that automated classifications can misread sarcasm, culture, or discussion history. Use results to guide careful human review—not to profile individuals, remove content, contact users, or make consequential decisions on their own.

Make it yours See how it works ↓
A Roman aqueduct taking shape from architectural sketch to marble.
A little structure. A clearer outcome.
Starts with
A moderator or researcher selects a public discussion sample
Produces
A source-linked discussion summary with tentative labels, uncertainty notes, and review status.
Category
Reviews & approvals

01 / The starting point

A clear request.
A useful direction.

An approved community scope, public material, and a stated review purpose

“Surface broad themes and possible concerns while keeping each interpretation open to correction.”
An example request · Make it specific to your team.

02 / The work

5 tasks.
One useful outcome.

Collects selected public posts and comments and prepares structured notes about tone, themes, and items that may merit review.

  1. Confirm the community and review purpose

    Use a bounded sample and only collect public material allowed by the relevant platform and community rules.

  2. Keep source context and dates

    Retain links and enough discussion context to understand replies, edits, and timing.

  3. Summarize themes with cautious labels

    Treat tone, concern, and urgency as provisional and avoid attributing beliefs to individuals.

  4. Check potentially harmful or urgent content

    Have a trained person inspect the original discussion before deciding whether any response is needed.

  5. Approve research or moderation follow-up

    Require a responsible human to decide whether to share findings, contact anyone, or take action.

03 / The result

Something useful.
Something to build on.

A source-linked discussion summary with tentative labels, uncertainty notes, and review status.

AmbactiWorkflow folio · 5 steps

Review public community feedback themes

Reviews & approvals · Example outcome

The handoff

A source-linked discussion summary with tentative labels, uncertainty notes, and review status.

Keep in mind

Sentiment and toxicity labels are uncertain interpretations, not facts about a person or a definitive moderation decision. Follow platform and community rules, protect identities, verify context at the original discussion, and require a trained moderator for any action.

04 / Make it yours

Set the brief.
Set the standard.

A few choices shape the work around your team.

Set source, purpose, and collection limits

Document approved communities, query scope, frequency, and platform rate limits.

Minimize identifiers and sensitive details

Use aggregate themes where possible and restrict access to raw conversations.

Explain classification uncertainty

Show that tone and harm indicators may be wrong and should not be used as standalone judgments.

Keep moderation decisions with trained people

Require human context review before content removal, user contact, or escalation.

Keep exploring

Review public community discussions

Find relevant public discussions for research and prepare a private review list without automatically contacting authors.

Put your next idea to work.

Start with your brief. Make the process your own.

Explore more workflows ↗