Expert Credibility and Sentiment in Infodemiology of Hydroxychloroquine’s Efficacy on Cable News Programs: Empirical Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Infodemic exacerbates public health concerns by disseminating unreliable and false scientific facts to a population. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine as a therapeutic solution emerged as a challenge to public health communication. Internet and social media spread information about hydroxychloroquine, whereas cable television was a vital source. To exemplify, experts discussed in cable television broadcasts about hydroxychloroquine for treating COVID-19. However, how the experts' comments influenced airtime allocation on cable television to help in public health communication, either during COVID-10 or at other times, is not understood. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine how 3 factors, that is, the credibility of experts as doctors (DOCTOREXPERT), the credibility of government representatives (GOVTEXPERT), and the sentiments (SENTIMENT) expressed in discussions and comments, influence the allocation of airtime (AIRTIME) in cable television broadcasts. SENTIMENT pertains to the information credibility conveyed through the tone and language of experts' comments during cable television broadcasts, in contrast to the individual credibility of the doctor or government representatives because of the degree or affiliations. METHODS: We collected transcriptions of relevant hydroxychloroquine-related broadcasts on cable television between March 2020 and October 2020. We coded the experts as DOCTOREXPERT or GOVTEXPERT using publicly available data. To determine the sentiments expressed in the broadcasts, we used a machine learning algorithm to code them as POSITIVE, NEGATIVE, NEUTRAL, or MIXED sentiments. RESULTS: The analysis revealed a counterintuitive association between the expertise of doctors (DOCTOREXPERT) and the allocation of airtime, with doctor experts receiving less airtime (P<.001) than the nonexperts in a base model. A more nuanced interaction model suggested that government experts with a doctorate degree received even less airtime (P=.03) compared with nonexperts. Sentiments expressed during the broadcasts played a significant role in airtime allocation, particularly for their direct effects on airtime allocation, more so for NEGATIVE (P<.001), NEUTRAL (P<.001), and MIXED (P=.03) sentiments. Only government experts expressing POSITIVE sentiments during the broadcast received a more extended airtime (P<.001) than nonexperts. Furthermore, NEGATIVE sentiments in the broadcasts were associated with less airtime both for DOCTOREXPERT (P<.001) and GOVTEXPERT (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Source credibility plays a crucial role in infodemics by ensuring the accuracy and trustworthiness of the information communicated to audiences. However, cable television media may prioritize likeability over credibility, potentially hindering this goal. Surprisingly, the findings of our study suggest that doctors did not get good airtime on hydroxychloroquine-related discussions on cable television. In contrast, government experts as sources received more airtime on hydroxychloroquine-related discussions. Doctors presenting facts with negative sentiments may not help them gain airtime. Conversely, government experts expressing positive sentiments during broadcasts may have better airtime than nonexperts. These findings have implications on the role of source credibility in public health communications.
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 | 0.014 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".