Global User-Level Perception of COVID-19 Contact Tracing Applications: Data-Driven Approach Using Natural Language Processing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Contact tracing has been globally adopted in the fight to control the infection rate of COVID-19. To this aim, several mobile apps have been developed. However, there are ever-growing concerns over the working mechanism and performance of these applications. The literature already provides some interesting exploratory studies on the community's response to the applications by analyzing information from different sources, such as news and users' reviews of the applications. However, to the best of our knowledge, there is no existing solution that automatically analyzes users' reviews and extracts the evoked sentiments. We believe such solutions combined with a user-friendly interface can be used as a rapid surveillance tool to monitor how effective an application is and to make immediate changes without going through an intense participatory design method. OBJECTIVE: In this paper, we aim to analyze the efficacy of AI and NLP techniques for automatically extracting and classifying the polarity of users' sentiments by proposing a sentiment analysis framework to automatically analyze users' reviews on COVID-19 contact tracing mobile apps. We also aim to provide a large-scale annotated benchmark data set to facilitate future research in the domain. As a proof of concept, we also developed a web application based on the proposed solutions, which is expected to help the community quickly analyze the potential of an application in the domain. METHODS: We propose a pipeline starting from manual annotation via a crowd-sourcing study and concluding with the development and training of artificial intelligence (AI) models for automatic sentiment analysis of users' reviews. In detail, we collected and annotated a large-scale data set of user reviews on COVID-19 contact tracing applications. We used both classical and deep learning methods for classification experiments. RESULTS: We used 8 different methods on 3 different tasks, achieving up to an average F1 score of 94.8%, indicating the feasibility of the proposed solution. The crowd-sourcing activity resulted in a large-scale benchmark data set composed of 34,534 manually annotated reviews. CONCLUSIONS: The existing literature mostly relies on the manual or exploratory analysis of users' reviews on applications, which is tedious and time-consuming. In existing studies, generally, data from fewer applications are analyzed. In this work, we showed that AI and natural language processing techniques provide good results for analyzing and classifying users' sentiments' polarity and that automatic sentiment analysis can help to analyze users' responses more accurately and quickly. We also provided a large-scale benchmark data set. We believe the presented analysis, data set, and proposed solutions combined with a user-friendly interface can be used as a rapid surveillance tool to analyze and monitor mobile apps deployed in emergency situations leading to rapid changes in the applications without going through an intense participatory design method.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".