The #VaccinesWork Hashtag on Twitter in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Network Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vaccination is one of the most successful public health interventions for the prevention of COVID-19. Toward the end of April 2021, UNICEF (United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund), alongside other organizations, were promoting the hashtag #VaccinesWork. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to analyze the #VaccinesWork hashtag on Twitter in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, analyzing the main messages shared and the organizations involved. METHODS: The data set used in this study consists of 11,085 tweets containing the #VaccinesWork hashtag from the 29th to the 30th of April 2021. The data set includes tweets that may not have the hashtag but were replies or mentions in those tweets. The data were retrieved using NodeXL, and the network graph was laid out using the Harel-Koren fast multiscale layout algorithm. RESULTS: The study found that organizations such as the World Health Organization, UNICEF, and Gavi were the key opinion leaders and had a big influence on the spread of information among users. Furthermore, the most shared URLs belonged to academic journals with a high impact factor. Provaccination users had other vaccination-promoting hashtags in common, not only in the COVID-19 scenario. CONCLUSIONS: This study investigated the discussions surrounding the #VaccinesWork hashtag. Social media networks containing conspiracy theories tend to contain dubious accounts leading the discussions and are often linked to unverified information. This kind of analysis can be useful to detect the optimal moment for launching health campaigns on Twitter.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".