Temporal Relationship between Daily Reports of COVID-19 Infections and Related GDELT and Tweet Mentions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social media platforms are valuable data sources in the study of public reactions to events such as natural disasters and epidemics. This research assesses for selected countries around the globe the time lag between daily reports of COVID-19 cases and GDELT (Global Database of Events, Language, and Tone) and Twitter (X) COVID-19 mentions between February 2020 and April 2021 using time series analysis. Results show that GDELT articles and tweets preceded COVID-19 infections in Australia, Brazil, France, Greece, India, Italy, the U.S., Canada, Germany, and the U.K., while for Poland and the Philippines, tweets preceded and GDELT articles lagged behind COVID-19 disease incidences, respectively. This shows that the application of social media and news data for surveillance and management of pandemics needs to be assessed on a case-by-case basis for different countries. It also points towards the applicability of time series data analysis for only a limited number of countries due to strict data requirements (e.g., stationarity). A deviation from generally observed lag patterns in a country, i.e., periods with low COVID-19 infections but unusually high numbers of COVID-19-related GDELT articles or tweets, signals an anomaly. We use the seasonal hybrid extreme Studentized deviate test to detect such anomalies. This is followed by text analysis of news headlines from NewsBank and Google on the date of these anomalies to determine the probable event causing an anomaly, which includes elections, holidays, and protests.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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, 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".