MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3155962341 · doi:10.1101/2021.04.09.21255229

COVID-19 vaccine perceptions: An observational study on Reddit

2021· preprint· en· W3155962341 on OpenAlexaff
Navin Kumar, Isabel Corpus, Meher Hans, Nikhil Harle, Nan Yang, Curtis McDonald, Shinpei Nakamura Sakai, Kamila Janmohamed, Weiming Tang, Jason L. Schwartz, S. Mo Jones-Jang, Koustuv Saha, Shahan Ali Memon, Chris T. Bauch, Munmun De Choudhury, Orestis Papakyriakopoulos, Joseph D. Tucker, Abhay Goyal, Aman Tyagi, Kaveh Khoshnood, Saad B. Omer

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMisinformation and Its Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersWhitney and Betty MacMillan Center for International and Area StudiesYale University
KeywordsMisinformationSocial mediaVaccinationCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PandemicPsychological interventionPsychologyPopulationMedicineFamily medicineInternet privacyPolitical scienceVirologyEnvironmental healthComputer scienceWorld Wide WebNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objectives As COVID-19 vaccinations accelerate in many countries, narratives skeptical of vaccination have also spread through social media. Open online forums like Reddit provide an opportunity to quantitatively examine COVID-19 vaccine perceptions over time. We examine COVID-19 misinformation on Reddit following vaccine scientific announcements. Methods We collected all posts on Reddit from January 1 2020 - December 14 2020 (n=266,840) that contained both COVID-19 and vaccine-related keywords. We used topic modeling to understand changes in word prevalence within topics after the release of vaccine trial data. Social network analysis was also conducted to determine the relationship between Reddit communities (subreddits) that shared COVID-19 vaccine posts, and the movement of posts between subreddits. Results There was an association between a Pfizer press release reporting 90% efficacy and increased discussion on vaccine misinformation. We observed an association between Johnson and Johnson temporarily halting its vaccine trials and reduced misinformation. We found that information skeptical of vaccination was first posted in a subreddit (r/Coronavirus) which favored accurate information and then reposted in subreddits associated with antivaccine beliefs and conspiracy theories (e.g. conspiracy, LockdownSkepticism). Conclusions Our findings can inform the development of interventions where individuals determine the accuracy of vaccine information, and communications campaigns to improve COVID-19 vaccine perceptions. Such efforts can increase individual- and population-level awareness of accurate and scientifically sound information regarding vaccines and thereby improve attitudes about vaccines. Further research is needed to understand how social media can contribute to COVID-19 vaccination services. Funding Study was funded by the Yale Institute for Global Health and the Whitney and Betty MacMillan Center for International and Area Studies at Yale University. The funding bodies had no role in the design, analysis or interpretation of the data in the study.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.301
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.155 · 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 venuemedRxivSame topicMisinformation and Its ImpactsFrench-language works237,207