Types of Racism and Twitter Users’ Responses Amid the COVID-19 Outbreak: Content Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: When the first COVID-19 cases were noticed in China, many racist comments against Chinese individuals spread. As there is a huge need to better comprehend why all of these targeted comments and opinions developed specifically at the start of the outbreak, we sought to carefully examine racism and advocacy efforts on Twitter in the first quarter of 2020 (January 15 to March 3, 2020). OBJECTIVE: The first research question aimed to understand the main type of racism displayed on Twitter during the first quarter of 2020. The second research question focused on evaluating Twitter users' positive and negative responses regarding racism toward Chinese individuals. METHODS: Content analysis of tweets was utilized to address the two research questions. Using the NCapture browser link and NVivo software, tweets in English and Spanish were pulled from the Twitter data stream from January 15 to March 3, 2020. A total of 19,150 tweets were captured using the advanced Twitter search engine with the keywords and hashtags #nosoyunvirus, #imNotAVirus, #ChineseDon'tComeToJapan, #racism, "No soy un virus," and "Racismo Coronavirus." After cleaning the data, a total of 402 tweets were codified and analyzed. RESULTS: The data confirmed clear sentiments of racism against Chinese individuals during the first quarter of 2020. The tweets displayed individual, cultural, and institutional racism. Individual racism was the most commonly reported form of racism, specifically displaying physical and verbal aggression. As a form of resistance, Twitter users created spaces for advocacy and activism. The hashtag "I am not a virus" helped to break stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination on Twitter. CONCLUSIONS: Advocacy efforts were enormous both inside and outside the Chinese community; an allyship sentiment was fostered by some white users, and an identification with the oppression experienced by the Chinese population was expressed in the Black and Muslim worldwide communities. Activism through social media manifested through art, food sharing, and community support.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".