MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6980848490

CRISIS COMMUNICATION DURING HEALTH CRISES: THE CASE OF CANADIAN OFFICIALS’ SOCIAL MEDIA PRESENCE DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

2022· article· en· W6980848490 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Association for Information Systems · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrisis communicationSocial mediaSituational ethicsCrisis managementMental healthPandemicSituation awarenessCrisis response
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To effectively manage a health crisis, citizens need to have shared Situational Awareness (SA) of the crisis. This study proposes that the public draws upon shared mental models of the crisis to achieve shared SA. Declarative, procedural, and strategic knowledge bases comprise the essential aspects of shared mental models of mission-critical situations like the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, public officials must provide a constant flow of crisis declarative, procedural, and strategic knowledge on social media. This study investigates Canadian officials’ presence on Twitter during the COVID-19 pandemic. Analyzing a dataset of 213,089 Canadian officials’ tweets shows that their presence was either for health crisis management (73.26%) or crisis-related topics (46.66%). Declarative (72.03%), procedural (38.1%), and strategic knowledge (30.18%) comprised 96% of the health crisis management tweets. This study informs research and practice by analyzing the essential role of knowledge types in creating a shared SA in managing health crises.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.390

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0390.008
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.078
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Association for Information SystemsSame topicSocial Media and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207