ArticleJournal of computational social science2022
Comparative analysis of social bots and humans during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in Journal of computational social science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Mask-Wearing Behavior on Social Media and Its Relationship With Demographic Characteristics During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Social Media Data Analysis Between the United States and Japan.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Article
- Quantifying Bot Impact: An Information-Theoretic Analysis of Complexity and Uncertainty in Online Political Communication Dynamics.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Unraveling the Use of Disinformation Hashtags by Social Bots During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Social Networks Analysis.JMIR infodemiology · 2025Article
- How does Twitter account moderation work? Dynamics of account creation and suspension on Twitter during major geopolitical events.EPJ data science · 2023Article
- Public Opinion Manipulation on Social Media: Social Network Analysis of Twitter Bots during the COVID-19 Pandemic.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- #JusticeforGeorgeFloyd: How Instagram facilitated the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests.PloS one · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Using more than 4 billion tweets and labels on more than 5 million users, this paper compares the behavior of humans and bots politically and semantically during the pandemic. Results reveal liberal bots are more central than humans in general, but less important than institutional humans as the elite circle grows smaller. Conservative bots are surprisingly absent when compared to prior work on political discourse, but are better than liberal bots at eliciting replies from humans, which suggest they may be perceived as human more frequently. In terms of topic and framing, conservative humans and bots disproportionately tweet about the Bill Gates and bio-weapons conspiracy, whereas the 5G conspiracy is bipartisan. Conservative humans selectively ignore mask-wearing and we observe prevalent out-group tweeting when discussing policy. We discuss and contrast how humans appear more centralized in health-related discourse as compared to political events, which suggests the importance of credibility and authenticity for public health in online information diffusion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.