Understanding COVID-19 Halal Vaccination Discourse on Facebook and Twitter Using Aspect-Based Sentiment Analysis and Text Emotion Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic introduced unprecedented challenges for people and governments. Vaccines are an available solution to this pandemic. Recipients of the vaccines are of different ages, gender, and religion. Muslims follow specific Islamic guidelines that prohibit them from taking a vaccine with certain ingredients. This study aims at analyzing Facebook and Twitter data to understand the discourse related to halal vaccines using aspect-based sentiment analysis and text emotion analysis. We searched for the term "halal vaccine" and limited the timeline to the period between 1 January 2020, and 30 April 2021, and collected 6037 tweets and 3918 Facebook posts. We performed data preprocessing on tweets and Facebook posts and built the Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) model to identify topics. Calculating the sentiment analysis for each topic was the next step. Finally, this study further investigates emotions in the data using the National Research Council of Canada Emotion Lexicon. Our analysis identified four topics in each of the Twitter dataset and Facebook dataset. Two topics of "COVID-19 vaccine" and "halal vaccine" are shared between the two datasets. The other two topics in tweets are "halal certificate" and "must halal", while "sinovac vaccine" and "ulema council" are two other topics in the Facebook dataset. The sentiment analysis shows that the sentiment toward halal vaccine is mostly neutral in Twitter data, whereas it is positive in Facebook data. The emotion analysis indicates that trust is the most present emotion among the top three emotions in both datasets, followed by anticipation and fear.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".