Exploring Conceptualizations of COVID-19 Risk in Ideologically Distinct Online Communities: A Computational Grounded Theory Analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on societies and economies around the globe, and experts warn about the potential for similar crises in the future. Risk communication theories underscore that while the potential for harm is objective, risk perception is a subjective, socially derived interpretation. While there is broad literature on the social construction of risk, fewer studies examine the role of communities-online or offline-in developing and reinforcing distinct interpretations of the same risk event. During COVID-19, online communities emerged as individuals sought to make sense of the ongoing crisis. These communities offer an opportunity to gain important insights into how concerned public collectively interprets risk and create group identities, informing public health strategies. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to, first, explore how online communities with distinct ideologies create and reinforce divergent conceptualizations of risk and, second, identify the role of group identity in shaping the development and communication of risk interpretations in these communities. METHODS: We used computational grounded theory, a multistep approach that includes pattern detection, hypothesis testing, and pattern confirmation to explore interpretations of risk and group identity in about 500,000 comments from the subreddits r/LockdownSkepticism and r/Masks4All. In the pattern detection step of this study, we grouped comments by the post they were made on and then used latent Dirichlet allocation topic modeling to identify 10 topics based on the frequency of term co-occurrence. In the hypothesis refinement step, we conducted a qualitative thematic analysis of 30 posts under each topic using Braun and Clarke's approach. Finally, in the pattern confirmation step, we trained a Word2Vec word embedding model to validate emerging themes from the second step. RESULTS: This study found that Masks4All and LockdownSkepticism both centered risk in their conversations, but with divergent concerns related to the threat of COVID-19. While Masks4All emphasized the threat to health, LockdownSkepticism questioned the necessity of preventive measures and focused on other risks: the threat to the economy, educational disruptions, and social isolation. Group identity was also found to shape collective meanings around risk, as community members in both subreddits affirmed group positions and condemned the outgroup. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that while both communities were concerned about COVID-19, their perceptions of risk focused on different aspects of the same risk event. This underscores the need for targeted interventions that engage with divergent ideologies and value systems across groups of people.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,017 | 0,011 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».