Texas Public Agencies’ Tweets and Public Engagement During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Natural Language Processing Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is characterized by different morbidity and mortality rates across different states, cities, rural areas, and diverse neighborhoods. The absence of a national strategy for battling the pandemic also leaves state and local governments responsible for creating their own response strategies and policies. OBJECTIVE: This study examines the content of COVID-19-related tweets posted by public health agencies in Texas and how content characteristics can predict the level of public engagement. METHODS: All COVID-19-related tweets (N=7269) posted by Texas public agencies during the first 6 months of 2020 were classified in terms of each tweet's functions (whether the tweet provides information, promotes action, or builds community), the preventative measures mentioned, and the health beliefs discussed, by using natural language processing. Hierarchical linear regressions were conducted to explore how tweet content predicted public engagement. RESULTS: The information function was the most prominent function, followed by the action or community functions. Beliefs regarding susceptibility, severity, and benefits were the most frequently covered health beliefs. Tweets that served the information or action functions were more likely to be retweeted, while tweets that served the action and community functions were more likely to be liked. Tweets that provided susceptibility information resulted in the most public engagement in terms of the number of retweets and likes. CONCLUSIONS: Public health agencies should continue to use Twitter to disseminate information, promote action, and build communities. They need to improve their strategies for designing social media messages about the benefits of disease prevention behaviors and audiences' self-efficacy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".