Web-Based Conversations Regarding Fathers Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Qualitative Content Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies of new and expecting parents largely focus on the mother, leaving a gap in knowledge about fathers. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to understand web-based conversations regarding new and expecting fathers on social media and to explore whether the COVID-19 pandemic has changed the web-based conversation. METHODS: A social media analysis was conducted. Brandwatch (Cision) captured social posts related to new and expecting fathers between February 1, 2019, and February 12, 2021. Overall, 2 periods were studied: 1 year before and 1 year during the pandemic. SAS Text Miner analyzed the data and produced 47% (9/19) of the topics in the first period and 53% (10/19) of the topics in the second period. The 19 topics were organized into 6 broad themes. RESULTS: Overall, 26% (5/19) of the topics obtained during each period were the same, showing consistency in conversation. In total, 6 broad themes were created: fatherhood thoughts, fatherhood celebrations, advice seeking, fatherhood announcements, external parties targeting fathers, and miscellaneous. CONCLUSIONS: Fathers use social media to make announcements, celebrate fatherhood, seek advice, and interact with other fathers. Others used social media to advertise baby products and promote baby-related resources for fathers. Overall, the arrival of the COVID-19 pandemic appeared to have little impact on the excitement and resiliency of new fathers as they transition to parenthood. Altogether, these findings provide insight and guidance on the ways in which public health professionals can rapidly gather information about special populations-such as new and expecting fathers via the web-to monitor their beliefs, attitudes, emotional reactions, and unique lived experiences in context (ie, throughout a global pandemic).
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 | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".