Credibility of vaccine-related content on Twitter during COVID-19 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During national COVID-19 vaccine campaigns, people continuously engaged on Twitter to receive updates on the latest public health information, and to discuss and share their experiences. During this time, the spread of misinformation was widespread, which threatened the uptake of vaccines. It is therefore critical to understand the reasons behind vaccine misinformation and strategies to mitigate it. The current research aimed to understand the content of misleading tweets and the characteristics of their corresponding accounts. We performed a machine learning approach to identify misinformation in vaccine-related tweets, and calculated the demographic, engagement metrics and bot-like activities of corresponding accounts. We found critical periods where high amounts of misinformation coincided with important vaccine announcements, such as emergency approvals of vaccines. Moreover, we found Asian countries had a lower percentage of misinformation shared compared to Europe and North America. Our results showed accounts spreading misinformation had an overall 10% greater likelihood of bot activity and 15% more astroturf bot activity than accounts spreading accurate information. Furthermore, we found that accounts spreading misinformation had five times fewer followers and three times fewer verified badges than fact-sharing accounts. The findings of this study may help authorities to develop strategies to fight COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and improve 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".