Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36187717›Full record

ArticleSocial network analysis and mining2022

Political polarization on Twitter during the COVID-19 pandemic: a case study in Brazil.

Pedro Brum, Matheus Cândido Teixeira, Renato Vimieiro, Eric Araújo, Wagner Meira, Gisele Lobo Pappa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Social network analysis and mining, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Pedro Brum *Computer Science Department, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Av. Pres. Antônio Carlos, 6627, Belo Horizonte, MG 31270-901 Brazil.
Matheus Cândido Teixeira *Computer Science Department, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Av. Pres. Antônio Carlos, 6627, Belo Horizonte, MG 31270-901 Brazil.
Renato VimieiroComputer Science Department, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Av. Pres. Antônio Carlos, 6627, Belo Horizonte, MG 31270-901 Brazil.
Eric AraújoComputer Science Department, Universidade Federal de Lavras, Aquenta Sol, Lavras, MG 37200-900 Brazil.
Wagner MeiraComputer Science Department, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Av. Pres. Antônio Carlos, 6627, Belo Horizonte, MG 31270-901 Brazil.
Gisele Lobo PappaComputer Science Department, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Av. Pres. Antônio Carlos, 6627, Belo Horizonte, MG 31270-901 Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-0349-4494

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The debate over the COVID-19 pandemic is constantly trending at online conversations since its beginning in 2019. The discussions in many social media platforms is related not only to health aspects of the disease, but also public policies and non-pharmacological measures to mitigate the spreading of the virus and propose alternative treatments. Divergent opinions regarding these measures are leading to heated discussions and polarization. Particularly in highly politically polarized countries, users tend to be divided in those in-favor or against government policies. In this work we present a computational method to analyze Twitter data and: (i) identify users with a high probability of being bots using only COVID-19 related messages; (ii) quantify the political polarization of the Brazilian general public in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic; (iii) analyze how bots tweet and affect political polarization. We collected over 100 million tweets from 26 April 2020 to 3 January 2021, and observed in general a highly polarized population (with polarization index varying from 0.57 to 0.86), which focuses on very different topics of discussions over the most polarized weeks-but all related to government and health-related events.

Indexed as

BotsCovid-19Political polarizationTwitter

Identifiers

PMID36187717
PMCPMC9510292

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.