Assessment of the Dissemination of COVID-19–Related Articles Across Social Media: Altmetrics Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The use of social media assists in the distribution of information about COVID-19 to the general public and health professionals. Alternative-level metrics (ie, Altmetrics) is an alternative method to traditional bibliometrics that assess the extent of dissemination of a scientific article on social media platforms. Objective Our study objective was to characterize and compare traditional bibliometrics (citation count) with newer metrics (Altmetric Attention Score [AAS]) of the top 100 Altmetric-scored articles on COVID-19. Methods The top 100 articles with the highest AAS were identified using the Altmetric explorer in May 2020. AAS, journal name, and mentions from various social media platforms (Twitter, Facebook, Wikipedia, Reddit, Mendeley, and Dimension) were collected for each article. Citation counts were collected from the Scopus database. Results The median AAS and citation count were 4922.50 and 24.00, respectively. TheNew England Journal of Medicine published the most articles (18/100, 18%). Twitter was the most frequently used social media platform with 985,429 of 1,022,975 (96.3%) mentions. Positive correlations were observed between AAS and citation count (r2=0.0973; P=.002). Conclusions Our research characterized the top 100 COVID-19–related articles by AAS in the Altmetric database. Altmetrics could complement traditional citation count when assessing the dissemination of an article regarding COVID-19. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) RR2-10.2196/21408
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | MetaresearchBibliometricsScholarly communication Domain: Evaluation · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
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 | 0.016 | 0.108 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.061 | 0.064 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".