ArticlePloS one2023
Detecting nuance in conspiracy discourse: Advancing methods in infodemiology and communication science with machine learning and qualitative content coding.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Evaluating the Influence of Role-Playing Prompts on ChatGPT's Misinformation Detection Accuracy: Quantitative Study.JMIR infodemiology · 2024Article
- Large Language Models Can Enable Inductive Thematic Analysis of a Social Media Corpus in a Single Prompt: Human Validation Study.JMIR infodemiology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The spread of misinformation and conspiracies has been an ongoing issue since the early stages of the internet era, resulting in the emergence of the field of infodemiology (i.e., information epidemiology), which investigates the transmission of health-related information. Due to the high volume of online misinformation in recent years, there is a need to continue advancing methodologies in order to effectively identify narratives and themes. While machine learning models can be used to detect misinformation and conspiracies, these models are limited in their generalizability to other datasets and misinformation phenomenon, and are often unable to detect implicit meanings in text that require contextual knowledge. To rapidly detect evolving conspiracist narratives within high volume online discourse while identifying nuanced themes requiring the comprehension of subtext, this study describes a hybrid methodology that combines natural language processing (i.e., topic modeling and sentiment analysis) with qualitative content coding approaches to characterize conspiracy discourse related to 5G wireless technology and COVID-19 on Twitter (currently known as 'X'). Discourse that focused on correcting 5G conspiracies was also analyzed for comparison. Sentiment analysis shows that conspiracy-related discourse was more likely to use language that was analytic, combative, past-oriented, referenced social status, and expressed negative emotions. Corrections discourse was more likely to use words reflecting cognitive processes, prosocial relations, health-related consequences, and future-oriented language. Inductive coding characterized conspiracist narratives related to global elites, anti-vax sentiment, medical authorities, religious figures, and false correlations between technology advancements and disease outbreaks. Further, the corrections discourse did not address many of the narratives prevalent in conspiracy conversations. This paper aims to further bridge the gap between computational and qualitative methodologies by demonstrating how both approaches can be used in tandem to emphasize the positive aspects of each methodology while minimizing their respective drawbacks.
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.