MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4252330865 · doi:10.31234/osf.io/5gskw

Preprint of "COVID-19 Increases Online Emotional and Health-Related Searches"

2020· preprint· en· W4252330865 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hongfei Du, Jing Yang, Ronnel B. King, Lei Yang, Peilian Chi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCOVID-19 Pandemic Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PanicPsychologyThe Internet2019-20 coronavirus outbreakMedicinePsychiatryAnxietyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: The COVID-19 pandemic has powerfully shaped people’s lives. The current work investigated the emotional and behavioral reactions people experience in response to COVID-19 through their internet searches. We hypothesized that when the prevalence rates of COVID-19 increase, people would experience more fear, which in turn would predict greater rates of protective behaviors, seeking health-related knowledge, and panic buying. Methods: Prevalence rates of COVID-19 in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia, were used as predictors. Fear-related emotions, protective behaviors, seeking health-related knowledge, and panic buying were indicated by internet search volumes in Google Trends. Cross-temporal analyses were conducted.Results: We found that increased prevalence rates of COVID-19 were associated with more searches for protective behaviors, health knowledge, and panic buying. This pattern was consistent across four countries, the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia. Fear-related emotions explained the associations between COVID-19 and the content of their information searches. Conclusion: Findings suggest that exposure to prevalence rates of COVID-19 and fear-related emotions may motivate people to search for relevant health-related information so as to protect themselves from 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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Domain: not available · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.210
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.207
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.145 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designObservational · Not applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical · Other

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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCOVID-19 Pandemic ImpactsCategoryInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)French-language works237,207