Analysis of Public Sentiment regarding COVID-19 Vaccines on the Social Media Platform Reddit
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
This study undertakes a thorough analysis of the sentiment within the r/Corona-virus subreddit community regarding COVID-19 vaccines on Reddit. We meticulously collected and processed 34,768 comments, spanning from November 20, 2020, to January 17, 2021, using sentiment calculation methods such as TextBlob and Twitter-RoBERTa-Base-sentiment to categorize comments into positive, negative, or neutral sentiments. The methodology involved the use of Count Vectorizer as a vectorization technique and the implementation of advanced ensemble algorithms like XGBoost and Random Forest, achieving an accuracy of approximately 80%. Furthermore, through the Dirichlet latent allocation, we identified 23 distinct reasons for vaccine distrust among negative comments. These findings are crucial for understanding the community’s attitudes towards vaccination and can guide targeted public health messaging. Our study not only provides insights into public opinion during a critical health crisis, but also demonstrates the effectiveness of combining natural language processing tools and ensemble algorithms in sentiment analysis.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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