The July 2024 uprising in Bangladesh highlighted the growing importance of social media in transforming widespread grievances into coordinated civic mobilisation, yet empirical understanding of how grievances, access to platforms, networked connectivity, and global consciousness jointly shape mobilisation remains limited, particularly in Global South contexts. This study addresses this gap by systematically examining the mechanisms through which these factors interact to influence digital mobilisation during the Bangladeshi uprising. Using survey data collected from 260 university students who constituted a central mobilisation cohort, the study operationalises grievances, access, connectivity, global consciousness, and digital mobilisation as composite constructs and analyses them through an integrated quantitative framework. Reliability analysis confirms internal consistency of the constructs, while principal component analysis validates their latent structure. Standardised regression modelling demonstrates that connectivity within online communities and global consciousness are the most influential predictors of mobilisation, together explaining approximately 45% of the variance in mobilisation outcomes, whereas access to platforms and grievances play smaller enabling roles. Unsupervised clustering further reveals two graded mobilisation profiles rather than a sharply polarised divide. Substantively, a one standard deviation increase in connectivity and global consciousness is associated with an average increase of approximately 0.6 on a 5-point mobilisation scale, corresponding to a marked shift from passive to active participation. By quantifying how network embeddedness and transnational framing amplify mobilisation, this study advances theories of connective action and provides empirically grounded insight into the dynamics of digitally mediated collective action in contemporary protest movements.

Civilisational intergovernmental organisations occupy a distinctive position in global governance because their legitimacy is shaped by institutional performance, symbolic identity, collective representation, and normative expectation. This study develops a sentiment-driven computational modelling framework for analysing institutional perceptions in a 57-member civilisational intergovernmental organisation. The empirical corpus comprises 30 semi-structured interviews, including 15 expert interviews and 15 general respondent interviews. After preprocessing, removal of administrative material, and exclusion of courtesy-only responses, the final corpus contained 239 answer segments and 42,940 respondent-generated words. The methodology integrates answer-level segmentation, thematic classification, lexical sentiment analysis, transformer-based sentiment modelling, latent semantic clustering, non-parametric statistical testing, bootstrap confidence estimation, and manual validation. The results show that institutional perception is broadly positive but thematically uneven. Experts recorded a mean polarity score of 0.0803, while general respondents recorded 0.1016. However, group-level differences were not statistically significant at segment level, Mann–Whitney $U=6171.50$, $p=0.0704$, or interview level, $U=71.00$, $p=0.0888$. In contrast, sentiment differed significantly across institutional themes, Kruskal–Wallis $H=45.8768$, $p<0.001$, and across latent semantic clusters, with Kruskal–Wallis $H=35.0124$ and $p<0.001$. The strongest positive sentiment appeared in reform and future orientation, mean polarity $=0.1700$, socioeconomic cooperation, $0.1330$, and institutional effectiveness, $0.1325$. The weakest sentiment concerned institutional weakness and constraints, $0.0546$, and political and security role, $0.0693$. Latent semantic clustering identified socioeconomic and economic cooperation as the most positively evaluated cluster, with mean polarity $0.1465$. Overall, the findings reveal a measurable tension between symbolic-developmental legitimacy and operational scepticism.