MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3126920566 · doi:10.35232/estudamhsd.778038

AN ANALYSIS ON THE ANTI-VACCINATION MOVEMENT IN TURKISH DIGITAL PLATFORMS: EKŞİSÖZLÜK AND FACEBOOK

2021· article· en· W3126920566 on OpenAlexaff
Hande UZ ÖZCAN

Bibliographic record

VenueEskişehir Türk Dünyası Uygulama ve Araştırma Merkezi Halk Sağlığı Dergisi · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVaccinationSocial mediaMedia studiesThematic analysisPsychologySociologyMedicinePolitical scienceSocial scienceLawVirologyQualitative research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The anti-vaccination movement turned into a public health problem also in Turkey. This paper analyzes the vaccine-related posts of one of the anti-vaccination group on Facebook. The group was selected as a “purposive sample”. Also, vaccine-related entries from EkşiSözlük, one of Turkey’s most popular collaborative hypertext dictionaries, were analyzed. The study aimed to find out if digital social media in Turkey were the main hub for the anti-vaccination movement, as this is the case in several countries, while also aiming to find out the motivations of anti-vaxxers. The Thematic Content Analysis (TCA) of Facebook messages and EkşiSözlük entries showed that Facebook appeared as a platform used more by anti-vaccination, mostly religious anti vaccination groups for disseminating their ideas. In contrast, very few anti-vaxxer messages were seen on EkşiSözlük, used by more secular and usually educated people. It was seen that anti-vaxxers were motivated by postmodern allegedly “scientific” and religious arguments, both of which are often shaped by conspiracy thinking.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEskişehir Türk Dünyası Uygulama ve Araştırma Merkezi Halk Sağlığı DergisiSame topicVaccine Coverage and HesitancyFrench-language works237,207