ANTi-Vax: a novel Twitter dataset for COVID-19 vaccine misinformation detection
Public Health, ISSN: 0033-3506, Vol: 203, Page: 23-30
2022
- 115Citations
- 10Usage
- 187Captures
- 2Mentions
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations115
- Citation Indexes115
- 115
- Usage10
- Abstract Views10
- Captures187
- Readers187
- 187
- Mentions2
- Blog Mentions1
- Blog1
- References1
- 1
Article Description
COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has infected hundreds of millions and inflicted millions of deaths around the globe. Fortunately, the introduction of COVID-19 vaccines provided a glimmer of hope and a pathway to recovery. However, owing to misinformation being spread on social media and other platforms, there has been a rise in vaccine hesitancy which can lead to a negative impact on vaccine uptake in the population. The goal of this research is to introduce a novel machine learning–based COVID-19 vaccine misinformation detection framework. We collected and annotated COVID-19 vaccine tweets and trained machine learning algorithms to classify vaccine misinformation. More than 15,000 tweets were annotated as misinformation or general vaccine tweets using reliable sources and validated by medical experts. The classification models explored were XGBoost, LSTM, and BERT transformer model. The best classification performance was obtained using BERT, resulting in 0.98 F1-score on the test set. The precision and recall scores were 0.97 and 0.98, respectively. Machine learning–based models are effective in detecting misinformation regarding COVID-19 vaccines on social media platforms.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033350621004534; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2021.11.022; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85122516994&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35016072; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0033350621004534; https://zuscholars.zu.ac.ae/works/4727; https://zuscholars.zu.ac.ae/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5726&context=works; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2021.11.022
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know