Analysis of the opinions of individuals on the COVID-19 vaccination on social media
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic continues to threaten public health globally. To develop effective interventions and campaigns to raise vaccination rates, policy makers need to understand people's attitudes towards vaccination. We examine the perspectives of people in India, the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom on the administration of different COVID-19 vaccines. We analyse how public opinion and emotional tendencies regarding the COVID-19 vaccines relate to popular issues on social media. We employ machine learning algorithms to forecast thoughts based on the social media posts. The prevailing emotional tendency indicates that individuals have faith in immunisation. However, there is a likelihood that significant statements or events on a national, international, or political scale influence public perception of vaccinations. We show how public health officials can track public attitudes and opinions towards vaccine-related information in a geo-aware manner, respond to the sceptics, and increase the level of vaccine trust in a particular region or community.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it