Using Twitter to Examine Stigma Against People With Dementia During COVID-19: Infodemiology Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: During the pandemic, there has been significant social media attention focused on the increased COVID-19 risks and impacts for people with dementia and their care partners. However, these messages can perpetuate misconceptions, false information, and stigma. OBJECTIVE: This study used Twitter data to understand stigma against people with dementia propagated during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We collected 1743 stigma-related tweets using the GetOldTweets application in Python from February 15 to September 7, 2020. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the tweets. RESULTS: Based on our analysis, 4 main themes were identified: (1) ageism and devaluing the lives of people with dementia, (2) misinformation and false beliefs about dementia and COVID-19, (3) dementia used as an insult for political ridicule, and (4) challenging stigma against dementia. Social media has been used to spread stigma, but it can also be used to challenge negative beliefs, stereotypes, and false information. CONCLUSIONS: Dementia education and awareness campaigns are urgently needed on social media to address COVID-19-related stigma. When stigmatizing discourse on dementia is widely shared and consumed amongst the public, it has public health implications. How we talk about dementia shapes how policymakers, clinicians, and the public value the lives of people with dementia. Stigma perpetuates misinformation, pejorative language, and patronizing attitudes that can lead to discriminatory actions, such as the limited provision of lifesaving supports and health services for people with dementia during the pandemic. COVID-19 policies and public health messages should focus on precautions and preventive measures rather than labeling specific population groups.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".