The shifting landscape of vaccine discourse: Insights from a decade of pre- to post-COVID-19 vaccine posts on social media
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, we study English-language vaccine discourse in social media posts, specifically posts on X (formerly Twitter), in seven years before the COVID-19 outbreak (2013 to 2019) and three years after the outbreak was first reported (2020 to 2022). Drawing on theories from social cognition and the stereotype content model in Social Psychology, we analyze how English speakers talk about vaccines on social media to understand the evolving narrative around vaccines in social media posts. To do that, we first introduce a novel dataset comprising 18.7 million curated posts on vaccine discourse from 2013 to 2022. This extensive collection-filtered down from an initial 129 million posts through rigorous preprocessing-captures both pre-COVID and COVID-19 periods, offering valuable insights into the evolution of English-speaking X users' perceptions related to vaccines. Our analysis shows that the COVID-19 pandemic led to complex shifts in X users' sentiment and discourse around vaccines. We observe that negative emotion word usage decreased during the pandemic, with notable rises in usage of surprise, and trust related emotion words. Furthermore, vaccine-related language tended to use more warmth-focused words associated with trustworthiness, along with positive, competence-focused words during the early days of the pandemic, with a marked rise in negative word usage towards the end of the pandemic, possibly reflecting a growing vaccine hesitancy and skepticism.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".