ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2023
Social Bots' Role in the COVID-19 Pandemic Discussion on Twitter.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Social bots have already infiltrated social media platforms, such as Twitter, Facebook, and so on. Exploring the role of social bots in discussions of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as comparing the behavioral differences between social bots and humans, is an important foundation for studying public health opinion dissemination. We collected data on Twitter and used Botometer to classify users into social bots and humans. Machine learning methods were used to analyze the characteristics of topic semantics, sentiment attributes, dissemination intentions, and interaction patterns of humans and social bots. The results show that 22% of these accounts were social bots, while 78% were humans, and there are significant differences in the behavioral characteristics between them. Social bots are more concerned with the topics of public health news than humans are with individual health and daily lives. More than 85% of bots' tweets are liked, and they have a large number of followers and friends, which means they have influence on internet users' perceptions about disease transmission and public health. In addition, social bots, located mainly in Europe and America countries, create an "authoritative" image by posting a lot of news, which in turn gains more attention and has a significant effect on humans. The findings contribute to understanding the behavioral patterns of new technologies such as social bots and their role in the dissemination of public health information.
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.