Users’ Reactions to Announced Vaccines Against COVID-19 Before Marketing in France: Analysis of Twitter Posts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Within a few months, the COVID-19 pandemic had spread to many countries and had been a real challenge for health systems all around the world. This unprecedented crisis has led to a surge of online discussions about potential cures for the disease. Among them, vaccines have been at the heart of the debates and have faced lack of confidence before marketing in France. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify and investigate the opinions of French Twitter users on the announced vaccines against COVID-19 through sentiment analysis. METHODS: This study was conducted in 2 phases. First, we filtered a collection of tweets related to COVID-19 available on Twitter from February 2020 to August 2020 with a set of keywords associated with vaccine mistrust using word embeddings. Second, we performed sentiment analysis using deep learning to identify the characteristics of vaccine mistrust. The model was trained on a hand-labeled subset of 4548 tweets. RESULTS: A set of 69 relevant keywords were identified as the semantic concept of the word "vaccin" (vaccine in French) and focused mainly on conspiracies, pharmaceutical companies, and alternative treatments. Those keywords enabled us to extract nearly 350,000 tweets in French. The sentiment analysis model achieved 0.75 accuracy. The model then predicted 16% of positive tweets, 41% of negative tweets, and 43% of neutral tweets. This allowed us to explore the semantic concepts of positive and negative tweets and to plot the trends of each sentiment. The main negative rhetoric identified from users' tweets was that vaccines are perceived as having a political purpose and that COVID-19 is a commercial argument for the pharmaceutical companies. CONCLUSIONS: Twitter might be a useful tool to investigate the arguments for vaccine mistrust because it unveils political criticism contrasting with the usual concerns on adverse drug reactions. As the opposition rhetoric is more consistent and more widely spread than the positive rhetoric, we believe that this research provides effective tools to help health authorities better characterize the risk of vaccine mistrust.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".