Public Perceptions About Monkeypox on Twitter: Thematic Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Social media has emerged as an important source of information generated by large segments of the population, which can be particularly valuable during infectious disease outbreaks. The recent outbreak of monkeypox led to an increase in discussions about the topic on social media, thus presenting the opportunity to conduct studies based on the generated data. OBJECTIVE: By analyzing posts from Twitter (subsequently rebranded X), we aimed to identify the topics of public discourse as well as knowledge and opinions about the monkeypox virus during the 2022 outbreak. METHODS: We collected data from Twitter focusing on English-language posts containing key phrases like "monkeypox," "mpoxvirus," and "monkey pox," as well as their hashtag equivalents from August to October 2022. We preprocessed the data using natural language processing to remove duplicates and filter out noise. We then selected a random sample from the collected posts. Three annotators reviewed a sample of the posts and created a guideline for coding based on discussion. Finally, the annotators analyzed, coded, and manually categorized them first into topics and then into coarse-grained themes. Disagreements were resolved via discussion among all authors. RESULTS: A total of 128,615 posts were collected over a 3-month period, and 200 tweets were selected and included for manual analyses. The following 8 themes were generated from the Twitter posts: monkeypox doubts, media, monkeypox transmission, effect of monkeypox, knowledge of monkeypox, politics, monkeypox vaccine, and general comments. The most common themes from our study were monkeypox doubts and media, each accounting for 22% (44/200) of the posts. The posts represented a mix of useful information reflecting emerging knowledge on the topic as well as misinformation. CONCLUSIONS: Social networks, such as Twitter, are useful sources of information in the early stages of outbreaks. Close to real-time identification and analyses of misinformation may help authorities take the necessary steps in a timely manner.
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 | 0.017 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".