Statistically Evaluating Social Media Sentiment Trends towards COVID-19 Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions with Event Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the midst of a global pandemic, understanding the public's opinion of their government's policy-level, non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) is a crucial component of the health-policy-making process.Prior work on COVID-19 NPI sentiment analysis by the epidemiological community has proceeded without a method for properly attributing sentiment changes to events, an ability to distinguish the influence of various events across time, a coherent model for predicting the public's opinion of future events of the same sort, nor even a means of conducting significance tests.We argue here that this urgently needed evaluation method does already exist.In the financial sector, event studies of the fluctuations in a publicly traded company's stock price are commonplace for determining the effects of earnings announcements, product placements, etc.The same method is suitable for analysing temporal sentiment variation in the light of policy-level NPIs.We provide a case study of Twitter sentiment towards policy-level NPIs in Canada.Our results confirm a generally positive connection between the announcements of NPIs and Twitter sentiment, and we document a promising correlation between the results of this study and a public-health survey of popular compliance with NPIs.
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 | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".