MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225874186 · doi:10.3389/fsoc.2022.811589

Trust and Engagement on Twitter During the Management of COVID-19 Pandemic: The Effect of Gender and Position

2022· article· en· W4225874186 on OpenAlexafffund
Samira Yousefinaghani, Rozita Dara, Melissa MacKay, Andrew Papadopoulos, Shayan Sharif

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Sociology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMisinformation and Its Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsOffensivePandemicPoliticsPosition (finance)Social mediaCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Public relationsPublic healthPolitical scienceSociologyBusinessMedicineEconomicsManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the COVID-19 pandemic, health and political leaders have attempted to update citizens using Twitter. Here, we examined the difference between environments that social media has provided for male/female or health/political leaders to interact with people during the COVID-19 pandemic. The comparison was made based on the content of posts and public responses to those posts as well as user-level and post-level metrics. Our findings suggest that although health officers and female leaders generated more contents on Twitter, political leaders and male authorities were more active in building networks. Offensive language was used more frequently toward males than females and toward political leaders than health leaders. The public also used more appreciation keywords toward health leaders than politicians, while more judgmental and economy-related keywords were used toward politicians. Overall, depending on the gender and position of leaders, Twitter provided them with different environments to communicate and manage the pandemic.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.330

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in SociologySame topicMisinformation and Its ImpactsFrench-language works237,207