Changes in public response associated with various COVID-19 restrictions in Ontario, Canada: an observational study using social media time series data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: News media coverage of anti-mask protests, COVID-19 conspiracies, and pandemic politicization has overemphasized extreme views, but does little to represent views of the general public. Investigating the public’s response to various pandemic restrictions can provide a more balanced assessment of current views, allowing policymakers to craft better public health messages in anticipation of poor reactions to controversial restrictions. Objective: Using data from social media, this study aims to understand the changes in public opinion associated with the implementation of COVID-19 restrictions (e.g. business and school closure, regional lockdown differences, additional public health restrictions such as social distancing and masking). Methods: COVID-related tweets in Ontario (n=1,150,362) were collected based on keywords between March 12 to Oct 31 2020. Sentiment scores were calculated using the VADER algorithm for each tweet to represent its negative to positive emotion. Public health restrictions were identified using government and news media websites, and dynamic regression models with ARIMA errors were used to examine the association between public health restrictions and changes in public opinion over time (i.e. collective attention, aggregate positive sentiment, and level of disagreement) controlling for the effects of confounders (i.e. daily COVID-19 case counts, holidays, COVID-related official updates). Results: In addition to expected direct effects (e.g. business closure led to decreased positive sentiment and increased disagreements), the impact of restriction on public opinion is contextually driven. For example, the negative sentiment associated with business closures was reduced with higher COVID-19 case counts. While school closure and other restrictions (e.g. masking, social distancing, and travel restrictions) generated increased collective attention, they did not have an effect on aggregate sentiment or the level of disagreement (i.e. sentiment polarization). Partial (region-targeted) lockdowns were associated with better public response (i.e. higher number of tweets with net positive sentiment and lower levels of disagreement) compared to province-wide lockdowns. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates the feasibility of a rapid and flexible method of evaluating the public response to pandemic restrictions using near real-time social media data. This information can help public health practitioners and policymakers anticipate public response to future pandemic restrictions, and ensure adequate
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".