MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3207887355 · doi:10.2196/32233

Influence of Mass Media on Italian Web Users During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Infodemiological Analysis

2021· article· en· W3207887355 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alessandro Rovetta, Lucia Castaldo

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIRx Med · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMisinformation and Its Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNewspaperPandemicSocial mediaCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Mass mediaPolitical scienceChristian ministryPublic relationsAdvertisingMedicineBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Concurrently with the COVID-19 pandemic, the world has been facing a growing infodemic, which has caused severe damage to economic and health systems and has often compromised the effectiveness of infection containment regulations. Although this infodemic has spread mainly through social media, there are numerous occasions on which mass media outlets have shared dangerous information, giving resonance to statements without a scientific basis. For these reasons, infoveillance and infodemiology methods are increasingly exploited to monitor information traffic on the web and make epidemiological predictions. Objective The purpose of this paper is to estimate the impact of Italian mass media on users’ web searches to understand the role of press and television channels in both the infodemic and the interest of Italian netizens in COVID-19. Methods We collected the headlines published from January 2020 to March 2021 containing specific COVID-19–related keywords published on PubMed, Google, the Italian Ministry of Health website, and the most-read newspapers in Italy. We evaluated the percentages of infodemic terms on these platforms. Through Google Trends, we searched for cross-correlations between newspaper headlines and COVID-19–related web searches. Finally, we analyzed the web interest in infodemic content posted on YouTube. Results During the first wave of COVID-19, the Italian press preferred to draw on infodemic terms (rate of adoption: 1.6%-6.3%) and moderately infodemic terms (rate of adoption: 88%-94%), while scientific sources favored the correct names (rate of adoption: 65%-88%). The correlational analysis showed that the press heavily influenced users in adopting terms to identify the novel coronavirus (cross-correlations of ≥0.74 to ≤0.89, P value <.001; maximum lag=1 day). The use of scientific denominations by the press reached acceptable values only during the third wave (approximately 80%, except for the television services Rai and Mediaset). Web queries about COVID-19 symptoms also appeared to be influenced by the press (best average correlation=0.92, P<.007). Furthermore, web users showed pronounced interest in YouTube videos of an infodemic nature. Finally, the press gave resonance to serious “fake news” on COVID-19, which caused pronounced spikes of interest from web users. Conclusions Our results suggest that the Italian mass media have played a decisive role in spreading the COVID-19 infodemic and addressing netizens’ web interest, thus favoring the adoption of terms that are unsuitable for identifying COVID-19. Therefore, the directors of news channels and newspapers should be more cautious, and government dissemination agencies should exert more control over such news stories.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Citations36
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIRx MedSame topicMisinformation and Its ImpactsFrench-language works237,207