MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Persuasive Data Storytelling with a Data Video during Covid-19 Infodemic: Affective Pathway to Influence the Users' Perception about Contact Tracing Apps in less than 6 Minutes

2022· article· en· W4281976227 on OpenAlexaff
Yumiko Sakamoto, Samar Sallam, Aaron Salo, Jason P. Leboe-McGowan, Pourang Irani

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedia Influence and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStorytellingComputer scienceAffect (linguistics)NarrativeMultimediaPerceptionCognitionPsychologyCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current pandemic showed us the importance of swiftly disseminating data-based information to the masses of people. This study explores an affect-centered narrative to convey data-driven messages regarding contact tracing apps (CTAs) using video as a medium (i.e., data video). A between-subjects online study compared the effect of three storytelling approaches on viewers' perception. A video developed by Google was selected as the baseline video (Control Condition; 2min 23s) due to its high quality and relevance to CTAs. The central messages of this baseline video were; a) how CTAs work, and b) how safe and effective CTAs are. Infographics supporting these messages were then added to the baseline video (the second condition; 3min 19s); this was a simple data video (DV), and it did not intend to induce specific emotional experiences in participants (i.e., cognition-centered video). Finally, an affect-focused DV (AFDV) was also created by emphasizing the emotion-based narrative aspect of the message (the third condition; 4min 6s). In this video, three cute human-like cartoon characters were introduced. Viewers in this condition needed to process both cognitive and affective information. Note all three videos (i.e., control video, DV, and AFDV) conveyed identical messages. Participants watched one of these three videos only once, and we explored the video effect on their perception. Our results repeatedly indicated the potential benefits of including affect in data storytelling.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.105
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMedia Influence and HealthFrench-language works237,207