Rapid assessment of communication consistency: sentiment analysis of public health briefings during the COVID-19 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: A key component of the initial public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic involved the use of mass media briefings led by public health officials to communicate updates during a time of great uncertainty and rapidly changing information. This study aims to examine the consistency of communications expressed during the public health briefings to generate novel insights about the type, direction, and strength of public health messages. The data source included 131 readily accessible public health briefings alongside the provincial and national new confirmed case counts during the first two waves of rapidly increasing cases during the pandemic in Alberta, Canada. We employed sentiment analysis as a text mining technique to explore the types and frequency of words in public health briefings conveying positive and negative sentiments. Using statistical analyses and data visualizations, we examined how public health messaging shifted with case trends. Results: Our findings indicate consistent public health messaging in terms of sentiments regardless of case count fluctuations, an association of specific words with conveying positive and negative sentiments, and a focus on particular message patterns at different points during the first two waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate the practical implications and methodological advantages of using sentiment analysis as a data analytics tool for rapidly and objectively assessing the consistency of health communications during a public health crisis.
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".