skip to main content
10.1145/3450614.3462239acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesumapConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

Analysis of Users Engaged in Online Discussions about Controversial Covid-19 Treatments

Published:22 June 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

The news and stories that people find credible can influence the adoption of public health policies and determine their response to the pandemic, including the reception of controversial treatments. Although we trust people we know or admire, we should ask ourselves if they are sufficiently competent to provide a reliable opinion about medical treatments. In this paper, we try to identify professions, political views and psychological characteristics of Twitter users who shared information about controversial medical treatments by analysing the profile data of tweets published in English during the Covid-19 pandemic. We found that profile descriptions of Twitter users are very heterogeneous, but the major categories of users are Christians, devoted family members, fans of different music or political parties. We proposed an automatic approach for user classification.

References

  1. Mossaab Bagdouri and Douglas W. Oard. 2015. Profession-Based Person Search in Microblogs: Using Seed Sets to Find Journalists. In Proc. of the 24th ACM International on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. ACM, 593–602.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Alexander Beloborodov, Pavel Braslavski, and Marina Driker. 2014. Towards Automatic Evaluation of Health-Related CQA Data. In Information Access Evaluation. Multilinguality, Multimodality, and Interaction. Springer International Publishing, 7–18.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Alexander Beloborodov, Artem Kuznetsov, and Pavel Braslavski. 2013. Characterizing Health-Related Community Question Answering. In Proc. of the 35th European Conference on Advances in Information Retrieval (Moscow, Russia) (ECIR’13). Springer-Verlag, 680–683.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Daniel Cer, Yinfei Yang, Sheng-yi Kong, Nan Hua, Nicole Limtiaco, Rhomni St. John, Noah Constant, Mario Guajardo-Cespedes, Steve Yuan, Chris Tar, Brian Strope, and Ray Kurzweil. 2018. Universal Sentence Encoder for English. In Proc. of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations. ACL, 169–174.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Dina Demner-Fushman, Yassine Mrabet, and Asma Ben Abacha. 2020. Consumer health information and question answering: helping consumers find answers to their health-related information needs. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 27, 2 (2020), 194–201.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Kiran Garimella, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales, Aristides Gionis, and Michael Mathioudakis. 2018. Quantifying Controversy on Social Media. ACM Trans. on Social Computing 1, 1 (2018), 3:1–3:27.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Asmelash Teka Hadgu and Robert Jäschke. 2014. Identifying and analyzing researchers on twitter. In Proc. of the 2014 ACM conference on Web science. ACM, 23–32.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Sujin Kim, Thomas Pinkerton, and Nithya Ganesh. 2012. Assessment of H1N1 questions and answers posted on the Web. American Journal of Infection Control 40, 3 (2012), 211–217.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Kyumin Lee, Jalal Mahmud, Jilin Chen, Michelle Zhou, and Jeffrey Nichols. 2014. Who Will Retweet This? Automatically Identifying and Engaging Strangers on Twitter to Spread Information. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (Haifa, Israel) (IUI ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 247–256. https://doi.org/10.1145/2557500.2557502Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Jalal Mahmud, Michelle X. Zhou, Nimrod Megiddo, Jeffrey Nichols, and Clemens Drews. 2014. Optimizing The Selection of Strangers To Answer Questions in Social Media. CoRR abs/1404.2013(2014). arxiv:1404.2013http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.2013Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Robert R. McCrae and Oliver P. John. 1992. An Introduction to the Five-Factor Model and Its Applications. Journal of Personality 60, 2 (1992), 175–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Marianne Noel, Liana Ermakova, Pedro Rammaciotti, Alexis Perrier, and Bilel Benbouzid. 2020. Controverse scientifique. https://dpa.hypotheses.org/controverse-scientifiqueGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Sanghee Oh and Adam Worrall. 2013. Health answer quality evaluation by librarians, nurses, and users in social Q&A. Library&Information Science Research 35, 4 (2013), 288–298.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Daniel Preoţiuc-Pietro, Vasileios Lampos, and Nikolaos Aletras. 2015. An analysis of the user occupational class through Twitter content. In Proc. of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing. ACL, 1754–1764.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Daniel Preoţiuc-Pietro, Ye Liu, Daniel Hopkins, and Lyle Ungar. 2017. Beyond Binary Labels: Political Ideology Prediction of Twitter Users. In Proc. of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. ACL, 729–740.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Luke Sloan and Jeffrey Morgan. 2015. Who Tweets with Their Location? Understanding the Relationship between Demographic Characteristics and the Use of Geoservices and Geotagging on Twitter. PLOS ONE 10, 11 (2015), e0142209. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0142209Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Yan Zhang. 2010. Contextualizing consumer health information searching: an analysis of questions in a social Q&A community. In Proc. of the 1st ACM International Health Informatics Symposium(IHI ’10). ACM, 210–219.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Analysis of Users Engaged in Online Discussions about Controversial Covid-19 Treatments
          Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Conferences
            UMAP '21: Adjunct Proceedings of the 29th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization
            June 2021
            431 pages
            ISBN:9781450383677
            DOI:10.1145/3450614

            Copyright © 2021 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 22 June 2021

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • short-paper
            • Research
            • Refereed limited

            Acceptance Rates

            Overall Acceptance Rate162of633submissions,26%

            Upcoming Conference

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader

          HTML Format

          View this article in HTML Format .

          View HTML Format