ArticlePNAS nexus2023
COVID-19 and social media: Beyond polarization.
Article in PNAS nexus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Information Pathways and Voids in Critical German Online Communities During the COVID-19 Vaccination Discourse: Cross-Platform and Mixed Methods Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- How older adults manage misinformation and information overload - A qualitative study.BMC public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic brought upon a massive wave of disinformation, exacerbating polarization in the increasingly divided landscape of online discourse. In this context, popular social media users play a major role, as they have the ability to broadcast messages to large audiences and influence public opinion. In this article, we make use of openly available data to study the behavior of popular users discussing the pandemic on Twitter. We tackle the issue from a network perspective, considering users as nodes and following relationships as directed edges. The resulting network structure is modeled by embedding the actors in a latent social space, where users closer to one another have a higher probability of following each other. The results suggest the existence of two distinct communities, which can be interpreted as "generally pro" and "generally against" vaccine mandates, corroborating existing evidence on the pervasiveness of echo chambers on the platform. By focusing on a number of notable users, such as politicians, activists, and news outlets, we further show that the two groups are not entirely homogeneous, and that not just the two poles are represented. To the contrary, the latent space captures an entire spectrum of beliefs between the two extremes, demonstrating that polarization, while present, is not the only driver of the network, and that more moderate, "central" users are key players in the discussion.
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.