Understanding the #longCOVID and #longhaulers Conversation on Twitter: Multimethod Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The scientific community is just beginning to uncover the potential long-term effects of COVID-19, and one way to start gathering information is by examining the present discourse on the topic. The conversation about long COVID-19 on Twitter provides insight into related public perception and personal experiences. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the #longCOVID and #longhaulers conversations on Twitter by examining the combined effects of topic discussion and social network analysis for discovery on long COVID-19. METHODS: A multipronged approach was used to analyze data (N=2500 records from Twitter) about long COVID-19 and from people experiencing long COVID-19. A text analysis was performed by both human coders and Netlytic, a cloud-based text and social networks analyzer. The social network analysis generated Name and Chain networks that showed connections and interactions between Twitter users. RESULTS: Among the 2010 tweets about long COVID-19 and 490 tweets by COVID-19 long haulers, 30,923 and 7817 unique words were found, respectively. For both conversation types, "#longcovid" and "covid" were the most frequently mentioned words; however, through visually inspecting the data, words relevant to having long COVID-19 (ie, symptoms, fatigue, pain) were more prominent in tweets by COVID-19 long haulers. When discussing long COVID-19, the most prominent frames were "support" (1090/1931, 56.45%) and "research" (435/1931, 22.53%). In COVID-19 long haulers conversations, "symptoms" (297/483, 61.5%) and "building a community" (152/483, 31.5%) were the most prominent frames. The social network analysis revealed that for both tweets about long COVID-19 and tweets by COVID-19 long haulers, networks are highly decentralized, fragmented, and loosely connected. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a glimpse into the ways long COVID-19 is framed by social network users. Understanding these perspectives may help generate future patient-centered research questions.
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 | 0.008 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".