Exploring COVID-19 public perceptions in South Africa through sentiment analysis and topic modelling of Twitter posts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The narratives shared on social media during a health crisis such as COVID-19 reflect public perceptions of the crisis. This article provides findings from a study of the perceptions of South African citizens regarding the government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic from March to May 2020. The study analysed Twitter data from posts by government officials and the public in South Africa to measure the public’s confidence in how the government was handling the pandemic. Results produced by four popular machine-learning classifiers for sentiment analysis— logistic regression (LR), support vector machine (SVM), random forest (RF), and extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost)—demonstrated these classifiers’ levels of effectiveness. In addition, the study used, and evaluated the effectiveness of, two topic-modelling algorithms—latent dirichlet allocation (LDA) and non-negative matrix factorisation (NMF)—in the classification of social media discourses in terms of frequently occurring topics. In terms of South African public sentiment towards COVID-19 and the government’s response, it was found that, based on the Twitter data, South Africans held predominantly negative views.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".