An analysis of COVID-19 vaccine sentiments and opinions on Twitter
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We identified public sentiments and opinions toward the COVID-19 vaccines based on the content of Twitter. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrieved 4,552,652 publicly available tweets posted within the timeline of January 2020 to January 2021. Following extraction, we identified vaccine sentiments and opinions of tweets and compared their progression by time, geographical distribution, main themes, keywords, posts engagement metrics and accounts characteristics. RESULTS: We found a slight difference in the prevalence of positive and negative sentiments, with positive being the dominant polarity and having higher engagements. The amount of discussion on vaccine rejection and hesitancy was more than interest in vaccines during the course of the study, but the pattern was different in various countries. We found the accounts producing vaccine opposition content were partly Twitter bots or political activists while well-known individuals and organizations generated the content in favour of vaccination. CONCLUSION: Understanding sentiments and opinions toward vaccination using Twitter may help public health agencies to increase positive messaging and eliminate opposing messages in order to enhance vaccine uptake.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it