MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376618583 · doi:10.1101/2023.05.10.23289764

Ability to detect fake news predicts sub-national variation in COVID-19 vaccine uptake across the UK

2023· preprint· en· W4376618583 on OpenAlexaff
Sahil Loomba, Rakoen Maertens, Jon Roozenbeek, Friedrich M. Götz, Sander van der Linden, Alexandre de Figueiredo

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMisinformation and Its Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersEconomic and Social Research CouncilEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilCambridge Trust
KeywordsMisinformationCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Perspective (graphical)Psychological interventionSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakPsychologySample (material)Government (linguistics)Scale (ratio)Social psychologyMedicineGeographyComputer scienceVirologyPsychiatryDiseaseOutbreakCartographyComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Susceptibility to believing false or misleading information is associated with a range of adverse outcomes. However, it is notoriously difficult to study the link between susceptibility to misinformation and consequential real-world behaviors such as vaccine uptake. In this preregistered study, we devise a large-scale socio-spatial model that combines the rigor of a psychometrically validated test of misinformation susceptibility administered to a nationally representative sample of 16,477 individuals with COVID-19 vaccine uptake data of 129 sub-national regions published by the United Kingdom (UK) government, to show that the general ability to detect misinformation strongly and positively predicts regional vaccine uptake in the UK. We put this practically significant correlational effect size into perspective by noting how psychological interventions that reduce individuals’ misinformation susceptibility could be associated with additional vaccine uptake.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.816
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.082
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicMisinformation and Its ImpactsFrench-language works237,207