MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3120424590 · doi:10.1017/s0008423921000020

Twitter Followers of Canadian Political and Health Authorities during the COVID-19 Pandemic: What Are Their Activity and Interests?

2021· article· en· W3120424590 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael Haman

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Political Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMisinformation and Its Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniverzita Hradec Králové
KeywordsPandemicPoliticsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Social mediaPolitical sciencePublic relationsPublic healthHealth information2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Internet privacyBusinessMedicineHealth careLawVirologyComputer scienceNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract I examined the use of Twitter during the COVID-19 pandemic to find out how many Twitter users started to follow relevant Canadian political and health authorities, and I investigated their activity and interests. To this end, I analyzed 398,037 Twitter accounts. The results reveal that the Twitter accounts of relevant authorities gained a significant number of new Twitter followers during the pandemic. The Twitter users who joined during the pandemic were rather passive; they tweeted and liked fewer tweets than Twitter users who registered in the months prior to the pandemic. They also chose to follow Twitter accounts predominantly related to news, politics and governmental agencies. These findings suggest that during the pandemic, numerous information-seeking citizens joined Twitter for the purpose of obtaining information about public health matters, which in turn suggests that authorities should incorporate Twitter into their information dissemination tools, especially during emergencies, to meet the public demand for information.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.876
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.141
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Political ScienceSame topicMisinformation and Its ImpactsFrench-language works237,207