How Twitter Can Support the HIV/AIDS Response to Achieve the 2030 Eradication Goal: In-Depth Thematic Analysis of World AIDS Day Tweets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: HIV/AIDS is a tremendous public health crisis, with a call for its eradication by 2030. A human rights response through civil society engagement is critical to support and sustain HIV eradication efforts. However, ongoing civil engagement is a challenge. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to demonstrate the use of Twitter data to assess public sentiment in support of civil society engagement. METHODS: Tweets were collected during World AIDS Days 2014 and 2015. A total of 39,940 unique tweets (>10 billion users) in 2014 and 78,215 unique tweets (>33 billion users) in 2015 were analyzed. Response frequencies were aggregated using natural language processing. Hierarchical rank-2 nonnegative matrix factorization algorithm generated a hierarchy of tweets into binary trees. Tweet hierarchy clusters were thematically organized by the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS core action principles and categorized under HIV/AIDS Prevention, Treatment or Care, or Support. RESULTS: Topics tweeted 35 times or more were visualized. Results show a decrease in 2015 in the frequency of tweets associated with the fight to end HIV/AIDS, the recognition of women, and to achieve an AIDS-free generation. Moreover, an increase in tweets was associated with an integrative approach to the HIV/AIDS response. Hierarchical thematic differences in 2015 included no prevention discussion and the recognition of the pandemic's impact and discrimination. In addition, a decrease was observed in motivation to fast track the pandemic's end and combat HIV/AIDS. CONCLUSIONS: The human rights-based response to HIV/AIDS eradication is critical. Findings demonstrate the usefulness of Twitter as a low-cost method to assess public sentiment for enhanced knowledge, increased hope, and revitalized expectations for HIV/AIDS eradication.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".