Ethical principles for infodemiology and infoveillance studies concerning infodemic management on social media
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Big data originating from user interactions on social media play an essential role in infodemiology and infoveillance outcomes, supporting the planning and implementation of public health actions. Notably, the extrapolation of these data requires an awareness of different ethical elements. Previous studies have investigated and discussed the adoption of conventional ethical approaches in the contemporary public health digital surveillance space. However, there is a lack of specific ethical guidelines to orient infodemiology and infoveillance studies concerning infodemic on social media, making it challenging to design digital strategies to combat this phenomenon. Hence, it is necessary to explore if traditional ethical pillars can support digital purposes or whether new ones must be proposed since we are confronted with a complex online misinformation scenario. Therefore, this perspective provides an overview of the current scenario of ethics-related issues of infodemiology and infoveillance on social media for infodemic studies.
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 | 0.173 | 0.174 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".