Social media discussions about long-term care and the COVID-19 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the proliferation of social media networks, online discussions can serve as a microcosm of the greater public opinion about key issues that affect society as a whole. Online discussions have been catalyzed by the COVID-19 pandemic and have magnified challenges experienced by older adults, health care professionals, and caregivers of long-term care (LTC) residents. Our main goal was to examine how online discussions and public perceptions about LTC practices have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. We conducted a content analysis of Twitter posts about LTC to understand the nature of social media discussions regarding LTC practices prior to (March to June 2019) and following the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic (March to June 2020). We found that a much greater number of Twitter posts about LTC was shared during the COVID-19 period than in the year prior. Multiple themes emerged from the data including highlighting concerns about LTC, providing information about LTC, and interventions and ideas for improving LTC conditions. The proportion of posts linked to several of these themes changed as a function of the pandemic. Unsurprisingly, one major new issue that emerged in 2020 is that users began discussing the shortcomings of infection control during the pandemic. Our findings suggest that increased public concern offers momentum for embarking on necessary changes to improve conditions in LTC.
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 | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".