MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3112384793 · doi:10.2196/24562

How Health Care Workers Wield Influence Through Twitter Hashtags: Retrospective Cross-sectional Study of the Gun Violence and COVID-19 Public Health Crises

2020· article· en· W3112384793 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ayotomiwa Ojo, Sharath Chandra Guntuku, Margaret Zheng, Rinad S. Beidas, Megan L. Ranney

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media in Health Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
KeywordsCategorizationVocabularyHealth carePublic healthSocial mediaMedicinePsychologyComputer scienceNursingArtificial intelligencePolitical scienceLinguisticsWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Twitter has emerged as a novel way for physicians to share ideas and advocate for policy change. #ThisIsOurLane (firearm injury) and #GetUsPPE (COVID-19) are examples of nationwide health care-led Twitter campaigns that went viral. Health care-initiated Twitter hashtags regarding major public health topics have gained national attention, but their content has not been systematically examined. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that Twitter discourse on two epidemics (firearm injury and COVID-19) would differ between tweets with health care-initiated hashtags (#ThisIsOurLane and #GetUsPPE) versus those with non-health care-initiated hashtags (#GunViolence and #COVID19). METHODS: Using natural language processing, we compared content, affect, and authorship of a random 1% of tweets using #ThisIsOurLane (Nov 2018-Oct 2019) and #GetUsPPE (March-May 2020), compared to #GunViolence and #COVID19 tweets, respectively. We extracted the relative frequency of single words and phrases and created two sets of features: (1) an open-vocabulary feature set to create 50 data-driven-determined word clusters to evaluate the content of tweets; and (2) a closed-vocabulary feature for psycholinguistic categorization among case and comparator tweets. In accordance with conventional linguistic analysis, we used a P<.001, after adjusting for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction, to identify potentially meaningful correlations between language features and outcomes. RESULTS: In total, 67% (n=4828) of #ThisIsOurLane tweets and 36.6% (n=7907) of #GetUsPPE tweets were authored by health care professionals, compared to 16% (n=1152) of #GunViolence and 9.8% (n=2117) of #COVID19 tweets. Tweets using #ThisIsOurLane and #GetUsPPE were more likely to contain health care-specific language; more language denoting positive emotions, affiliation, and group identity; and more action-oriented content compared to tweets with #GunViolence or #COVID19, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Tweets with health care-led hashtags expressed more positivity and more action-oriented language than the comparison hashtags. As social media is increasingly used for news discourse, public education, and grassroots organizing, the public health community can take advantage of social media's broad reach to amplify truthful, actionable messages around public health issues.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.180
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations51
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Public Health and SurveillanceSame topicSocial Media in Health EducationFrench-language works237,207