Prediction of COVID-19 Waves Using Social Media and Google Search: A Case Study of the US and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has posed a severe threat to public health worldwide. In this study, we aimed to evaluate several digital data streams as early warning signals of COVID-19 outbreaks in Canada, the US and their provinces and states. Two types of terms including symptoms and preventive measures were used to filter Twitter and Google Trends data. We visualized and correlated the trends for each source of data against confirmed cases for all provinces and states. Subsequently, we attempted to find anomalies in indicator time-series to understand the lag between the warning signals and real-word outbreak waves. For Canada, we were able to detect a maximum of 83% of initial waves 1 week earlier using Google searches on symptoms. We divided states in the US into two categories: category I if they experienced an initial wave and category II if the states have not experienced the initial wave of the outbreak. For the first category, we found that tweets related to symptoms showed the best prediction performance by predicting 100% of first waves about 2-6 days earlier than other data streams. We were able to only detect up to 6% of second waves in category I. On the other hand, 78% of second waves in states of category II were predictable 1-2 weeks in advance. In addition, we discovered that the most important symptoms in providing early warnings are fever and cough in the US. As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to spread around the world, the work presented here is an initial effort for future COVID-19 outbreaks.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".