A mixed methods investigation of how young adults in Virginia received, evaluated, and responded to COVID-19 public health messaging
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
The purpose of this study was to investigate how young adults in Virginia received, evaluated, and responded to messages related to the coronavirus/COVID-19, a major disruptor of our time, and to understand how and when these messages influenced behavior. This was a sequential explanatory mixed methods study, including an online survey (quantitative) and virtual focus groups (qualitative). We surveyed a convenience sample of 3,694 Virginia residents by distributing a link to complete the survey online. Only data from18-24 year old adults (n=207) were included in the analysis for this study. Focus group participants were recruited from the survey participants as well as from a college-level introductory health class. Most (83%) young adult respondents reported national science and health organizations as a trusted source for COVID-19 information and over 50% of respondents reported getting information from state/local health departments (72%), healthcare professionals (71%), and online news sources (51%). Focus group participants emphasized social media as an additional major source of COVID-19 information. Focus group data revealed that young adults struggled with deciphering contradictory messaging, had a mix of logical and emotional reasons for deciding whether to adhere to guidelines, had a desire for consistent, fact-based public health messaging at the national level. The findings from this study underscore the importance of consistent, positive public health messaging in a public health crisis.
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 | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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