Misleading the Covid-19 vaccination discourse on Twitter: An exploratory study
of infodemic around the pandemic
Shakshi Sharma
1, Rajesh Sharma
1, Anwitaman Datta
21Institute of Computer Science, University of Tartu, Estonia
2School of Computer Science and Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore {shakshi.sharma,rajesh.sharma}@ut.ee, [email protected]
Abstract
In this work, we collect a moderate-sized representative cor- pus of tweets (200,000 approx.) pertaining Covid-19 vac- cination spanning over a period of seven months (Septem- ber 2020 - March 2021). Following a Transfer Learning ap- proach, we utilize the pre-trained Transformer-based XLNet model to classify tweets as Misleading or Non-Misleading and validate against a random subset of results manually.
We build on this to study and contrast the characteristics of tweets in the corpus that are misleading in nature against non- misleading ones. This exploratory analysis enables us to de- sign features (such as sentiments, hashtags, nouns, pronouns, etc) that can, in turn, be exploited for classifying tweets as (Non-)Misleading using various ML models in an explainable manner. Specifically, several ML models are employed for prediction, with up to 90% accuracy, and the importance of each feature is explained using SHAP Explainable AI (XAI) tool. While the thrust of this work is principally exploratory analysis in order to obtain insights on the online discourse on Covid-19 vaccination, we conclude the paper by outlin- ing how these insights provide the foundations for a more actionable approach to mitigate misinformation. The curated dataset and code is made available (github repository) so that the research community at large can reproduce, compare against or build upon this work.
1 Introduction
“We live in an era of unprecedented scientific break- throughs and expertise. But we’re also stymied by the forces of misinformation that undermine the true knowl- edge that is out there.” — Dr. Laolu Fayanju [Bosman et al. (2021)]
A recent study Machingaidze and Wiysonge (2021) com- pares vaccine hesitancy in several low and middle income countries (LMIC) with vaccine hesitancy in the US and Rus- sia, which were some of the countries at the forefront of Covid-19 vaccine research. The average vaccine acceptance rate in LMICs was reported to be 80.3%, compared to 64.6%
in the United States and 30.4% in Russia. A complex set of reasons exist for the tremendous vaccination hesitancy — this includes lack of adequate knowledge and certainty about Copyright © 2020, Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (www.aaai.org). All rights reserved.
the virus itself, as well as the surprisingly rapid development and very short span of testing within which the vaccines had to be deployed given the magnitude of the global pandemic.
The fears, uncertainties, and doubts (FUD) around Covid- 19 and the currently available vaccines are amplified by the ongoing discourse in social media - leading to an infodemic (a portmanteau of information and epidemic, referring to the spread of possibly accurate and inaccurate information about a disease, itself spreading like an epidemic). The infodemic is preyed on and further fuelled by prolific misinformation spreaders (for instance, the ‘disinformation dozen’ The Cen- ter for Countering Digital Hate (2021)), who may have spe- cial interests and agendas in doing so.
Given such relentless assault of misinformation and the immense impact it has on the society at large, it is imperative to foremost characterize the nature of such misinformation as well as be able to identify instances of such misinforma- tion at scale, that is, in an automated manner. That is the thrust of our current work, specifically focused on the dis- course on Twitter. Such understanding and detection mech- anisms are vital to devising countermeasures, for example, given a specific piece of misinformation, quickly identify it as such and determine what might be appropriate factual in- formation best poised to counter said claim; or identify the most prevalent misinformation and the particular FUDs they prey upon so that policy makers can determine and direct the resources for public messaging accordingly.
Overall, the issue at hand is of vital importance and press- ing in nature. As such, it is being studied - both within academia (across multiple disciplines: medical scientists and epidemiologists, social and political scientists, as well as information and computer scientists), as well as by many other stakeholders, particularly among governance, public policy making entities, and traditional journalists and poll- sters, beyond academia. The current work based on the study of openly accessible Covid-19 vaccine-related tweets fits within and adds to this broader effort. In particular, we would like to emphasize the strengths but also the shortcom- ings of our approach in comparison to traditional surveys.
Traditional survey driven analysis, for example, Bosman et al. (2021) are able to collect and analyze details, particu- larly demographic breakdowns such as age, race, gender,
arXiv:2108.10735v1 [cs.CL] 16 Aug 2021
education, income, geography, etc. that a study like ours is incapable of carrying out because such information is scarce if ever available. In contrast, a foremost benefit of using information from social media is its sheer scale. Further- more, once the analysis methodology and the necessary data pipeline to do so is put in place, the exercise can be repeated or carried out continuously, and compare the evolution of the discourse and gauge the situation over (real-)time1. Given that most of the discourse is online, ironically even more so given that physical interactions are attenuated because of the pandemic, and online social media (OSM) platforms are where misinformation thrives - targeting a study of the so- cial media content allows to identify not only the emerging misinformation but also the prolific agents responsible for their spread. Likewise, based on the data already collected, a robust model to classify tweets as being potentially Mislead- ingcan be realized. This direct and pinpointed access to the well of misinformation provides opportunities for real-time intervention with actionable intelligence that can be derived from the analysis we carry out in this work (we outline such possibilities in our concluding remarks).
The key highlights and contributions of the current work are as follows:
1. Data (following FAIR principle, i.e., findable, accessi- ble, interoperable, and reusable): From an initial set of over 200,000 tweets which we originally collected, we de- noised and curated a representative collection of 114,635 tweets related to Covid-19 vaccination, along with two mutually exclusive subsets of 1246 and 1000 tweets man- ually labeled in terms of whether they are Misleading or Non-Misleading(Section 3). Adhering with Twitter’s con- tent redistribution policy2, we provide the Tweet IDs (and our labels, when applicable) for these collections. We also provide the source code used in this work for data col- lection, processing, and analysis. These can be found at https://github.com/shakshi12/CovidVaccination.
2. Exploratory analysis: We analyze the dataset across three dimensions: (i) Language Exploration (Section 4) utilizing syntactic structure and the principal themes in- volved in both Misleading and Non-Misleading tweets, (ii) Opinion Study (Section 5) leverage the sentiments and emotions of both types of tweets, (iii) Effect of Vis- ibility (Section 6) involves analyzing meta-data of the tweets. These dimensions based on the tweets provide us insights in order to categorize the tweets into Misleading and Non-Misleading tweets.
3. Classification & explainability: Aforementioned anal- ysis aided the identification of potential features which could be explicitly leveraged to classify tweets to deter- mine whether they are Misleading or not. This explicit approach was compared against a black-box model (XL- Net), and the mutual consistency of these approaches, aided with the explainability dimension of our approach, reinforces the credibility of the classifiers (Section 7). The
1In this work, we only conduct a retrospective analysis.
2https://developer.twitter.com/en/developer-terms/agreement- and-policy
efficacy, as well as marginal contributions of a subset of features, were explored empirically for further validation.
Beyond the immediate value from the understanding it provides, this work lays the foundation for building tools for intervention to mitigate the spread of misinformation.
2 Related Work
Online social media (OSM) witnesses active discussions re- lated to vaccinations for various diseases, old and new, in- cluding measles Cossard et al. (2020) Yuan, Schuchard, and Crooks (2019), Ebola virus, human papillomavirus (HPV), and the flu Raghupathi, Ren, and Raghupathi (2020). In particular, researchers have studied the spread of misinfor- mation Cossard et al. (2020) and the discourse among pro and anti-vaccination groups Yuan, Schuchard, and Crooks (2019), as well as the role of bots on these platforms in steering the discussions driven by vested interests Yuan, Schuchard, and Crooks (2019).
These studies have spanned diverse OSMs, including Facebook Ma and Stahl (2017), Mejova and Kalimeri (2020), Twitter Mitra, Counts, and Pennebaker (2016), Ger- mani and Biller-Andorno (2021), Cossard et al. (2020), and e-Commerce platforms Juneja and Mitra (2021), which have been criticized for tackling vaccine misinformation Wardle and Singerman (2021). In Evanega et al. (2020), authors study COVID-related misinformation that emerged in tra- ditional media. Studies have also analyzed the financial in- fluence and impact of anti-vaccination groups across mul- tiple dimensions, including the revenues generated across various OSM platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, and In- stagram Burki (2020), in particular through advertisements promoted on Facebook involving misinformation narratives by using conspiracy theories to unverifiable claims Mejova and Kalimeri (2020), which in part explains the deep en- trenchment of such false narratives in the public discourse.
It is common to see the involvement of politicians and influ- encers in anti-vaccination campaigns, who cheer-lead and exploit misinformation Cossard et al. (2020), and are, in turn, often used by anti-vaccination proponents as reference points Germani and Biller-Andorno (2021). In addition, a longitudinal study has shown that conspiracy theories and government distrust are often used by long-standing anti- vaccination proponents to recruit new individuals among their cohort Mitra, Counts, and Pennebaker (2016).
A few AI based studies have also been carried out with respect to vaccine misinformation. For example, in Mønsted and Lehmann (2019), authors train a deep neural network for predicting tweet vaccine sentiments, and in Sear et al.
(2020), machine learning was used to quantify covid-19 re- searchers’ content in the online health opinion. In Ma and Stahl (2017), a study employed a multimodal critical dis- course analysis approach to analyze the textual and graphic information within a public anti-vaccine Facebook group. In Juneja and Mitra (2021), authors conduct two sets of algo- rithmic audits for vaccine misinformation on the search and recommendation algorithms of Amazon— the world’s lead- ing retailer.
One of the closest works to that of ours is Potthast et al.
(2017), where authors analyzed 1,627 articles from highly partisan (left and right) using stylometric techniques. In this work, we try to explore the Misleading and Non-Misleading tweets into three dimensions, namely, syntax exploration, opinions, and utilizing meta-data of the tweets. In addition, we also try to use these features and predict the tweets with explainability.
3 Dataset
The data collection process is described in this section, fol- lowed by the processing steps.
3.1 Data Collection
The first news of the world’s COVID-19 vaccine registra- tion345in August 2020, as well as Trump’s order to carry out vaccination even before it had been thoroughly tested and approved67, signaled a vaccine rush among various countries around the world. Naturally, this amplified manifold the dis- cussions around Covid-19 vaccines both offline as well as online. We examine what type of discussions about COVID- 19 vaccination spread over Twitter since it provides an easy to mine source of information representing all the important narratives. We collected tweets related to COVID-19 vacci- nation for the period from September 2020 to March 2021.
Most countries had begun vaccine rollouts8910 as of March 2021, and gradually people are less hesitant to get vacci- nated11 even though a significant part of the population re- mains so. Thus, the period leading up to large-scale vaccine rollout is critical for studying and understanding the nature of misinformation and its spread.
Given the restrictions of Twitter API, collecting an ex- haustive dataset is not feasible, and as such, we aimed for a representative sample instead. We queried the Twitter Streaming API with a wide variety of relevant keywords, for example, – vaccine, anti-vax, anti-vaccination, antivaxxer, antivaccine, CovidVaccine, COVID19, Chinesevirus, covax, COVIDVaccine, COVIDVaccination, COVAX, etc. in order to collect tweets related to COVID-19 vaccination. This re- sulted in over 200,000 tweets. After filtering the tweets in English, the final dataset used in this study has 114,635 tweets.
3https://www.businesstoday.in/sectors/pharma/russia-set-to- register-world-first-coronavirus-vaccine-on-august-12-all-you- need-to-know/story/412455.html
4https://www.timesnownews.com/health/article/russia-to- register-worlds-first-covid-19-vaccine-on-august/633846
5https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/apr/18/coronavirus- vaccine-trials-could-be-completed-by-mid-august
6https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53899908
7https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/02/health/covid-19- vaccine-cdc-plans.html
8https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/25/covid-live-updates.html
9https://www.who.int/news/item/17-03-2021-who-statement- on-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-safety-signals
10https://www.health.gov.au/news/newsletters/covid-19- vaccine-update-30-march-2021
11https://www.ajmc.com/view/a-timeline-of-covid-19-vaccine- developments-in-2021
3.2 Data Processing Methodology
In order to perform the analysis, we further process and label the tweets as Misleading and Non-Misleading.
Data Cleaning: To clean the tweets, we apply standard NLP techniques such as removal of white space, non- alphanumeric characters, lowercase, stop words, URL links, apostrophe replacement, tokenization, and Porter stemming.
However, we did not remove the stop words while analyzing the Syntactic dimension in Section 4.
Annotation Task: Next, we discuss the annotation pro- cess of the tweets. We designate a tweet to be Mislead- ingwhen the content of a tweet deviates from the evidence shared by news media or reputable sources such as the WHO (World Health Organization), and even if it uses facts in parts, it might add connotations to it that encourages vac- cine hesitancy. Otherwise, we consider the tweet as Non- Misleading. For instance, the tweet, “I wonder if the type of covid vaccine we get will become the new stereotype or derogatory term people use. Imagine someone talkin shit bout you just cuz you got Pfizer lmaooo” spins a narrative to increase people’s distrust. Thus, in this work we consider it as a Misleading tweet. Another example of a Misleading tweet is, “[username]12 I know its so bloody weird that Gates funded every single vaccine moderne Pfizer Ox- ford etc WTF. Something un my gut says dont have the vaccine. I dk why - it just a feeling I can share.” Parts of these tweets might be true, but it was written in such a way that it tries to alter the facts thereby, encourages vaccine ap- prehension and fear. As such, we deem them misleading and analyze the nature of such tweets.
The reason for such Misleading tweets could be the result of the widespread COVID-19 vaccination half-truths and myths13. Examples of Misleading tweets from our dataset includes - “The COVID-19 vaccine is not safe because it was rapidly developed and tested”, “I already had COVID-19 and I have recovered, so I don’t need to get a COVID-19 vaccine when its available”, “COVID- 19 vaccines will alter DNA”, “The COVID-19 vaccine was developed to control the general population either through microchip tracking or ”nanotransducers” in our brains”. These narratives are designed to prompt vaccine hesitancy Cossard et al. (2020) and eventually becomes the root cause of further Misleading information.
Since data annotation is a costly and labor-intensive op- eration, we explore the application of Transfer Learning Pan and Yang (2009) to annotate the tweets as Misleading or Non-Misleading. To that end, we took a random sam- ple of 1246 tweets which is a representative of the com- plete dataset, and manually annotate these tweets as either Misleadingor Non-Misleading tweets. We maintained a bal- anced dataset. After labeling these 1246 tweets, we fine-
12Given the sensitive nature of the data (even though it is ob- tained from the public domain), we replaced user names mentioned in the tweets with [username] tag
13https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/18/health/myths-covid- vaccine-debunked/index.html
tune the XLNet14 language model, which is an extension of the Transformer-XL model, and learns the bidirectional con- texts. BERT and RoBERTa were also tested. XLNet, how- ever, outperforms all other models for our dataset. Table 1, row 1 shows the evaluation metrics calculated on the XLNet model’s validation set. Precisely, 389 out of 1246 tweets are validation set, and the rest are used as a training set. Finally, we use our fine-tuned XLNet model to annotate the rest of the tweets.
In order to validate the efficiency of the annotated tweets, we manually verify 1000 random tweets. This sample is also balanced in nature. Table 1, row 2 shows the evalua- tion metrics of the manual validation process. The accuracy of the sample is 0.98, indicating that our model has been well-trained, and we can rely on these labels to get further insights. The dataset15 along with obtained labels as well as the 1246 tweets with their manual labels is available at repository16.
Next, we explore our dataset using three dimensions: Lan- guage Exploration (Section 4) covering Syntactic and Topic Analysis, Opinion Study (Section 5) comprising Sentiments and Emotions, and Effect of Visibility (Section 6) involving exploration of tweets’ meta-data.
Table 1: Evaluation Metrics of the XLNet model. PR rep- resents Precision, RC represents Recall, F1 represents F1- Score, and ACC represents Accuracy
Experiment # of samples PR RC F1 ACC
Train & test 389 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Validate 1000 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.98
4 Language Exploration
4.1 Uncover SyntaxAfter assigning Misleading and Non-Misleading labels for each tweet (as discussed in Section 3), we study ten Syntac- tic aspects (attributes) to distinguish the structural patterns of both types of tweets. First, we visualize the Syntactic dis- tributions of both Misleading and Non-Misleading tweets.
Next, to validate that the difference in both the distributions are indeed significant, we use Kolmogorov Smirnov Test17.
First, we look at the Nouns, the main building blocks of any sentence. We observe from Figure 1(a) that visu- ally there is a slight variation in both distributions. To de- termine whether this difference in the distributions is statis- tically significant, we calculated the p-value of Nouns (see Table 2, row 1), which is much lower than the significance level, which implies that the two distributions are in fact dissimilar. Second, Pronouns are the substitute for Nouns.
Figure 1(b) shows that Pronouns are more used in Non- Misleading tweets than Misleading tweets. Third, Type- Token Ratio (TTR) measures the lexical diversity (quality)
14https://huggingface.co/transformers/model doc/xlnet.html
15The dataset is shared following the Twitter Policy rules
16https://github.com/shakshi12/CovidVaccination
17https://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/eda/section3/eda35g.htm
of the text. Specifically, it is the ratio between the total num- ber of unique words (types) in the text and the total number of words in the text. The higher the value of this ratio, the higher the lexical diversity of the text.
T T R = # of T ypes
# of T okens ∗ 100 (1)
We notice in Figure 1(c) that the distributions are right- skewed, indicating that the text is of good quality in terms of lexical diversity. However, we observe some differences be- tween the distributions. In contrast to Non-Misleading, the mean of the Misleading distribution is below 90. In addi- tion, when TTR is near to 100, the density of the Misleading distribution is lower in comparison to its mean. Whereas, Non-Misleading distribution has a similar density with re- spect to its mean. This implies that Misleading tweets are less lexically diverse in contrast to Non-Misleading tweets.
In addition, the p-value is present in Table 2, row 3, which is lower, indicating the distributions are different.
Table 2: P-values of Kolmogorov Smirnov Test.
Syntactic Attributes P-values
Nouns 1.16e-112
Pronouns 4.19e-80
TTR 2.09e-96
Stop words 1.10e-44
Verbs 7.81e-50
Conjunctions 5.89e-57
Adverbs 1.84e-25
Determiners 0.0
Adjectives 0.0
WH-words 0.0
Fourth, Stop words such as a, an, the, is, be are often part of the text. It is clear from Figure 1(d) that the mean of the Misleading and Non-Misleading distribution is close to 22 and 18, respectively. Furthermore, Misleading distribution has a flatter peak. This implies that majority of the Mislead- ingtweets use more Stop words. Fifth, Verbs are used in a text to describe any action, occurrence or state of being. It is visible from Figure 1(e) that the spread of the Mislead- ing distribution is skewed towards right side of the graph than the Non-Misleading distribution. Sixth, Conjunctions are the words that are used to connect the words (sentences).
We observe from Figure 1(f) that there is a slight variation in both the distributions. Seventh, Adverbs qualifies or modi- fies the Verbs, Adjectives, or other Adverbs. It is clear from Figure 1(g) that the distribution of Misleading tweets is more spread than the Non-Misleading tweets.
We investigate other Syntactic aspects namely, Determin- ers (Figure 1(h)), Adjectives (Figure 1(i)), and WH-words (Figure 1(j)). Their p-values present in Table 2, row 8, 9, and 10. Although these values are near but less than significance level, we consider them distinguishable attributes in finding Misleadingand Non-Misleading tweets.
(a) Nouns (b) Pronouns (c) TTR (d) Stop words (e) Verbs
0 10 20 30
0.00
0.05
0.10
0 5 10 15
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
40 60 80 100
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06
0 20 40
0.00
0.02
0.04
0 10 20
0.00
0.05
0.10
(f) Conjunctions (g) Adverbs (h) Determiners (i) Adjectives (j) WH-words
0 10 20
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0 5 10 15
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 10
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0 10
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5
0
1
2
3 Labels
Non-Misleading
Misleading
Figure 1: Syntactic Analysis. The x-axis represents the counts and y-axis represents the density of the distribution.
4.2 What are the Principal Topics of Discussion?
Next, using topic modeling, we inspect the top five most talked-about topics among Misleading and Non-Misleading tweets (see Table 3).
Table 3: Top 5 Discussed Topics in Misleading and Non- Misleading COVID-19 Vaccination Tweets.
Misleading Non-Misleading Politics Operation Warp Speed Myths & Side-Effects Shots
Vaccine Efficacy Vaccine Efficacy Role of Trump Real Side-Effects Vaccine Choices Data & Facts
Following are the key themes of Misleading tweets - 1) Politics:The frequent targets of these tweets are politics;
for example, the tweet - “I don’t even trust this Govt to take a vaccine they are desperate to sell us This makes me feel sad But now if cellulitis is also a side effect of it And blood clots And Morrison brushes that aside and or lies to us about it What ?”. Here, the key point of discus- sion is not to believe the government, and thus misleads the readers by bringing political angle into vaccination debate and creating this type of vaccine prejudice.
2) Myths and Side-Effects: The false stories and myths18 about vaccines have the greatest effect on people’s minds;
for instance, this tweet - “IF you are allergic to eggs and chicken, you are not going to receive a dose of the 1.02 million doses of Oxford-Astrazeneca vaccine that is ex- pected in Kenya on Tuesday 2 March, 2021.” is attempt-
18https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/18/health/myths-covid- vaccine-debunked/index.html
ing to steer readers away from the true story19, namely the delivery of said volume of vaccines under the COVAX ini- tiative.
3) Vaccine Efficacy: There is a lot of confusion related to vaccine efficacy, for instance, - “How can we trust the vac- cine when the efficacy is not reported precisly??”.
4) Trump’s Role:Trump is well-known for being heavily in- volved in many false reports20. This tweet confirms Trump’s involvement in the tweet - “Why did the whitehouse turn down Pfizer offer of the vaccine as the 1st to receive it? Seems Mr. Trump joins hands with Operation Warp Speed and they are deliberately slowing the speed of vac- cine rollout.”
5) Vaccines Choice:There is skepticism about choosing the vaccines. For instance, this tweet tells one of the myths about altering DNA for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine - “Do not get the Johnson & Johnson version. The MOA is differ- ent than that of Pfizer’s or Moderna’s vaccine. Picture a tennis ball inside a basketball. J&J’s enters the nucleus (tennis ball) that can permanently alter DNA.”.
The key themes of Non-Misleading tweets are:
1) Operation Warp Speed:The most discussed topic - Op- eration Warp Speed, initiated by the US government to fa- cilitate the development and distribution of Covid vaccines.
An example of a tweet with this theme - “[username] Pfizer vaccine was self funded. Nothing to do with warp speed, the government or the lying ex president trump. TRUMP IS A LIAR”.
2) Shots & Real Side-Effects:These two themes are about in- forming individual’s actual experience after getting the vac-
19https://www.unicef.org/kenya/press-releases/over-1-million- covid-19-vaccine-doses-arrive-nairobi-via-covax-facility
20https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/13/trump-tweets-legacy-of- lies-misinformation-distrust.html
cine shot. We provide an example of a tweet which is re- lated to both the themes - “I had the PFIZER shot(s), 30 days apart, and both times it didn’t hurt. My arm was sore later on for a day or two. 24 hours after the second shot I got a fever and chills and promptly went to sleep.
Woke up 10 hours later feeling great. No other side ef- fects. GET THIS VACCINE!”
3) Vaccine Efficacy:Both Misleading and Non-Misleading have a shared theme. This indicates that they are both dis- cussing the vaccine’s efficacy. Misleading tweets, on the other hand, aim to cause uncertainty regarding vaccine ef- ficacy, while Non-Misleading tweets emphasize the positive aspects of vaccine efficacy, such as - “#JabMe: A single shot of either the Pfizer or Oxford vaccine provides about 80 percent protection against being treated in a hospital, according to the latest data from the UK vaccination pro- gram.”
4) Data & Facts: Non-Misleading tweets are more con- cerned with presenting accurate information, such as -
“BBC: Around 5 million Europeans have already re- ceived the AstraZeneca vaccine. Of this figure, about 30 cases had reported ”thromboembolic events” - or de- veloping blood clots. European medicines regulator said there was no indication the jab was causing the blood clots.”
The top five themes indicate that the different subjects ex- plored in both types of tweets. Precisely, Misleading tweets mostly misleads the reader using political dimension or raise fear among the people for vaccination. In comparison, Non- Misleadingtweets discuss the real side-effects of the vacci- nation and try to bring the facts with evidence.
5 Opinion Study
Previously, we explored the Syntactic dimension. We now look into the second dimension, the role of Opinion in rela- tion to Misleading and Non-Misleading tweets.
5.1 Sentiment Matters
We first explore the impact of sentiments on Misleading and Non-Misleading Covid-19 vaccination tweets, considering three broad categories of sentiments: Positive, Negative, and Neutral. The sentiments are calculated using VADER API21. Figure 2 shows that Negative sentiments are more preva- lent in Misleading tweets followed by Positive and Neutral sentiments. An example of a Misleading tweet with Posi- tive sentiment is “A little Angel in my dreams today told that our bodies will be developing antibodies on its own within a few days without vaccination”. While a read- ing of it indicates vaccine prejudice and skepticism, the sentiment analysis tool latches upon the positive sounding phrases in there.
We then identify the topics which are being discussed with respect to sentiments. Apart from ‘Vaccine Efficacy’
which confirms the above mentioned tweet’s theme, the related topics ‘Operation Warp Speed’ and ‘Trials’ are also identified within the Positive sentiments of Misleading tweets. (See Table 4). We surmise that Misleading tweets
21https://github.com/cjhutto/vaderSentiment
Misleading Non-Misleading 0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0% Negative
Neutral Positive
Figure 2: Sentiment Analysis. The x-axis and y-axis denote the labels of the tweets and percentages, respectively.
with Positive sentiments inject the negativity by sugar- coating the tweets with positive words to easily trick people into either believing in their positive hypothetical situations or providing a new dimension to the topic.
Positive sentiments on the other hand dominate in Non- Misleading tweets, though a substantial portion of them again have Negative or Neutral sentiments. An instance of a Non-Misleading tweet with Negative sentiment is “Dr Kathrin Jansen, Pfizer’s head of vaccine development:
We were never part of the Warp Speed ... We have never taken any money from the U.S. government, or from any- one. Trump is a liar”. In this instance, the Negative senti- ment of the Non-Misleading tweet is due to it counteracting the Misleading information. Many facts and news related to the pandemic have naturally Negative sentiments. Simi- lar to this tweet argument, topics that are discovered in the Negative sentiments of Non-Misleading tweets are Opera- tion Warp Speed and Vaccine Efficacy, in addition to, Tri- als and Data & Facts (See Table 4). These Non-Misleading tweets with Negative sentiments indicate that they are either attempting to clarify claims against Covid Vaccination’s De- velopment Companies or myths against the vaccination pro- cess with their choice of negative words.
Table 4: Topic Modeling with respect to each sentiments. M and NM represent Misleading and Non-Misleading. OWS and VaEf denote Operation Warp Speed and Vaccine Effi- cacy, respectively.
Positive Negative Neutral
M Trials, OWS, VaEf
VaEf, OWS, Trials, Myths
VaEf, OWS, Trials
NM
Trump, Real side-effects, VaEf
Data & Facts, OWS, VaEf, Trials
Data & Facts, VaEf,
Real side-effects
Overall, Negative sentiments are more common in Mis- leadingtweets, whereas, Non-Misleading tweets have more Positive sentiments. We go through five different emotions in detail in the next Section.
Table 5: Topic Modeling with respect to each Emotion. M and NM represent Misleading and Non-Misleading. OWS and VaEf denote Operation Warp Speed and Vaccine Efficacy, respectively.
Fear Surprise Sadness Anger Happiness
M Trials, OWS, VaEf
Trials, Politics,
Trump, Myths VaEf, OWS, Politics VaEf, OWS,
Availability, Trials VaEf, approval NM Trump, Politics,
VaEf
Shots, Data & Facts, OWS, VaEf
Data & Facts, VaEf, Politics
VaEf, Data & Facts, Real side-effects, Availability
VaEf, Real side-effects
Figure 3: Emotion Analysis. Each axis denotes the emotion.
Non-Misleading tweets are represented ingreencolor, and Misleading tweets are inredcolor (best seen in color).
5.2 Intense Emotions
The sentiments serve as the foundation for analyzing the tweets. As a result, we dig deeper into the impact of emo- tions on tweets. Figure 3 displays the five different emotions - Anger, Fear, Happiness, Sadness, and Surprise. In Mislead- ingtweets, the most common emotion is Fear, followed by Surprise, Sadness, Happiness, and, finally, Anger. Whereas, Non-Misleadingtweets have a tie for the first place with Fear and Surprise, followed by Happiness, Sadness, and at last, Anger.
We observe that Fear and Surprise are the two most pop- ular emotions in both types of tweets, which is understand- able given that 45% of unvaccinated people are afraid to get the vaccine because they are worried about the adverse side- effects22.
To confirm this, we look into the topics around the Fear and Surprise emotions. The topics which are similar to the above statement are Trials and Vaccine Efficacy in both Mis- leadingand Non-Misleading categories (See Table 5).
However, the emotion Fear is higher in Misleading tweets in contrast to Non-Misleading tweets, which is attributable to the fact that most Misleading tweets reference fake and fabricated vaccine side-effects which misleads the users with false stories of Operation Warp Speed (Table 5).
In contrast, emotion Surprise is higher in Non-Misleading tweets than Misleading tweets. Upon closer look at the data, we found that a significant part of the Non-Misleading tweets with emotion Surprise discuss the governments’ fast response towards vaccination, fitting into the Data & Facts
22https://www.vox.com/recode/22330018/covid-vaccine- hesitancy-misinformation-carnegie-mellon-facebook-survey
topic.
Furthermore, emotions, Anger, and Sadness are higher in Misleadingtweets. One of the possible reasons could be that these tweets often involve a political dimension and accus- ing the government of not making the right decisions.
The matching topics under both emotions are Politics, Vaccine Availability, and Operation Warp Speed in the Mis- leadingcategory.
Non-Misleadingtweets that have emotion Happiness dis- cuss their experience about receiving the shot and facing no bogus side-effects spreading across the Internet. A related topic is Real side-effects in the Non-Misleading category.
To summarize, the majority of the Misleading tweets have Fear emotions more than Non-Misleading tweets.
5.3 Emotions++
Next, we explore the emotions defined by the NRC-(VAD) lexicon23: Valence, Arousal, and Dominance. These emo- tions assist in comprehending the words that are more con- ducive to specific emotions.
The top 30 contributing words for emotion Valence are shown in Figure 4a in the form of a word shift plot, quanti- fying which words contribute to a difference between the two groups, and how they contribute. Contributing words in Misleading tweets include speed, money, kill, die, dan- ger, stop, while Non-Misleading tweets contain words like shot, ill, reaction, profit. In addition, Misleading tweets have more words for emotion Valence in the top 30 than Non- Misleadingtweets. This analysis also confirms that the sen- timents of Misleading tweets are more Negative, and Non- Misleadingtweets are more Positive.
Figure 4b represents the contributing words for emotion Arousal. We notice that contributing words in Misleading tweets are die, kill, danger. Whereas frequent words such as speed, shot, money, reaction are found in Non-Misleading tweets. Also, Misleading tweets contain more Arousal words in the top 30 than Non-Misleading tweets.
Figure 4c represents emotion Dominance. In Misleading tweets, contributing words are trump, effect, kill. In Non- Misleading tweets, contributing words are speed, money, chief, hope. One thing to note is that the words such as money, speedoccurs in both types of tweets. The possible reason could be that these words are used heavily in context of Trump’s involvement in Operation Warp Speed. How- ever, it conveys different meanings in both types of tweets.
Non-Misleadingtweets contain more Dominant words in the
23http://saifmohammad.com/WebPages/nrc-vad.html
(a) Valence (b) Arousal (c) Dominance
Figure 4: Word Shift of Valence, Arousal, and Dominance Emotion (left-side green lines represent words used in Non- Misleading tweets, and right-sideredlines represent words used in Misleading tweets).
top 30 than Misleading tweets. We infer that Misleading tweets have more Valence and Arousal words, whereas Non- Misleadingtweets have more Dominant words.
6 The Influence of Visibility
So far, our analysis was confined to the content of the tweets themselves. The focus of the third dimension, looking at in- formation and meta-data in the tweets that influence their visibility, e.g., words used, hashtags, likes, etc. to study whether there are distinctive characteristics across Mislead- ingand Non-Misleading tweets.
6.1 The merry words of Twitter
Certain words are used more frequently in the tweets than others. In Figures 5a and 5b, we use Word Clouds to sum- marize this for both Non-Misleading and Misleading tweets visually. The relative frequency of the words is reflected in the size of the words.
The Figures show that the most frequent words in both Word Clouds are completely different, indicating that the choice of the words in both types of tweets significantly varies. Shot, report, jab, ill, sore, and fact are all recurring words in the Non-Misleading Word Cloud, whereas, wait, death, risk, effect, trump,and die are all frequent words in the Misleading Word Cloud.
To study this difference quantitatively, the top 50 words from both the Misleading and Non-Misleading classes are then extracted along with their relative ranking information.
Only seven words were found to be common in both classes.
We also computed the Kendall Tau correlation coefficient24 on the union of the top 50 Misleading and Non-Misleading
24https://online.stat.psu.edu/stat509/lesson/18/18.3
(a) Non-Misleading Tweets (b) Misleading Tweets Figure 5: Word Clouds. The size of the word is proportional to its frequency.
words. A score of -0.81 was observed, showing disagree- ment between the word groups (the Kendall Tau range is [-1, 1], with -1 indicating strong disagreement and 1 indicating strong agreement). This clearly suggests that frequently re- curring words are unrelated, implying that the word choices in both classes differ.
We also plot the top 30 most frequent words present in both classes for comparison purposes. Figure 6 is the Shan- non Entropy Word Shift25 that finds the surprising words by ranking the difference between the entropies. It can be observed that words used in the Non-Misleading class are very distinctive from the Misleading class. Non-Misleading words - Warp, Speed, shot, sore mentions about the real side of the story such as Operation Warp Speed (initiated by the
25https://shifterator.readthedocs.io/en/latest/shifts.html
Figure 6: Frequency Word Shift of top 30 words (left-side green lines signify words used in Non-Misleading tweets and right-sidered lines denotes words used in Misleading tweets).
US government to facilitate development and distribution of the Covid vaccines), people expressing the actual side- effects they face after getting jabbed. On the other hand, trump, damage, trust, kill, stop are the Misleading words used to describe the false stories of vaccination.
6.2 Much ado about Hashtags
Extensive usage of hashtags is a popular way to enhance the targeted exposure of the tweets. We investigate the hashtags from two perspectives.
Unique Hashtags: We explore such hashtags that are rela- tively unique to Misleading versus Non-Misleading tweets.
Table 6 lists some of the popular ones. Note that the hash- tags mentioned in the Table are chosen depending on how many times they appear in the tweets. In Misleading tweets, the #untestedvaccine clearly indicates that the tweet refers to one of the vaccine myths. In contrast, the #vaccinatedand- proud represents that tweet is in support of the vaccination process. Thus, the choice of the hashtags can provide a clue about the Misleading tweets.
Co-hashtags: We also consider the combination of hash- tags that frequently occurred together in a tweet, i.e., co-hashtags. In Non-Misleading tweets, we find 280 co- hashtags, while 86 co-hashtags are found in Misleading tweets. After filtering those co-hashtags that occurred more than once, we found that co-hashtags repeatedly occurred only in Non-Misleading tweets. There is no pattern (consis- tency) concerning co-hashtags in Misleading tweets, making their hashtags more random.
6.3 As you Like it
The number of Retweets, Replies, and Likes count are all essential visibility attributes. Figure 7 depicts the mean val- ues of the counts of Retweets, Replies, and Likes for both
Table 6: Use of 10 different Hashtags (left-side represents the hashtags that are by and large present in Non-Misleading tweets but not in Misleading tweets, and vice-versa on the right).
Non-Misleading Misleading fullyvaccinated saynotopoisonvaccines
savetheplanet vaccineextortion healthnews pseudoscience thisismyshot trumpvirusdeathtoll240k covid19updates untestedvaccine
scienceisreal iwillnotgetvaccinated publichealth billgatesisevil
inthenews abolishbigpharma vaccinatedandproud novaccine4me
2ndshot astrazenecapoison
classes. On average, Replies to the tweets remain the same
Retweets Likes Replies
M NM 2.5 5.0
7.5
10.0
12.5
Figure 7: Aggregation of Visibility Counts. Each cell repre- sents the mean values of the Retweets, Replies, and Likes with respect to the labels of tweets. ‘NM’ and ‘M’ denote the Non-Misleading and Misleading tweets, respectively.
regardless of the type of information it contains. However, there is a variation in the Retweets count and Likes count.
Relatively, the Misleading tweets get fewer Retweets and Likes than Non-Misleading tweets.
6.4 What’s in a Name?
The names of the Covid-19 vaccinations are frequently men- tioned in tweets. In this regard, we attempt to assess the influence of vaccine names in both Misleading and Non- Misleading tweets. From the dataset, we discovered five popular vaccines: Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, Covaxin, and Johnson & Johnson. These names are used either in an individual or combined manner.
Figure 8 shows that the proportion of Misleading tweets is lower than the proportion of Non-Misleading tweets un- til the number of vaccine names is fewer than or equal to three. When the count reaches four or five, the number of Misleadingtweets begins to rise. This means that when the number of vaccine names in a tweet grows more than three, the likelihood of a Misleading tweet also grows.
0 1 2 3 4 5 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
(a)
3.3% None One 21.4%
Two 13.0%
Three 20.4%
Four
23.1% Five
18.9%
(b)
Figure 8: Count of Vaccine Names used in a Tweet. X-axis and y-axis in Figure 8(a) represents the count of the vac- cines’ names and percentages, respectively. Value 0 on the x-axis corresponds to no mention of the vaccine name in the tweet, Value 1 denotes mention of one vaccine, and so on.
Figure 8(b) shows the percentage of the tweets with respect to the count of the vaccine name.
6.5 The Winter’s Tweet
We also look at how the tweets’ creation time influences Misleading information. Figure 9 shows the generation of tweets month by month from September 2020 to March 2021.
9/20(1.2) 10/20(8.5) 11/20(15) 12/20(21) 1/21(27) 2/21(19) 3/21(29) 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Figure 9: Tweet Creation Time (Monthly). X-axis and y-axis represent the year-month and percentages, respectively. The numbers inside the brackets denote absolute numbers of the tweets in thousands.
Non-Misleading tweets peaked in November 2020, whereas Misleading tweets peaked in January 2021. This could be due to the fact that several data reports and guidelines26, such as California Reports Allergic Reactions to Moderna Vaccine, Who can take the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine?, New variant identified in Japan, On the use of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in pregnancy, were released in January 2021. As a result, it appears that when data and guidelines were published, false information based on misinterpretations rose on Twitter.
From the analysis presented so far, we conclude that the writing styles, as well as meta-information carry distinctive characteristics that may help segregate the Misleading and Non-Misleadingtweets. Practically, presence of such signals and explicitly understanding their behavior aides improve
26https://www.who.int/news-room/news-updates and https://www.ajmc.com/view/a-timeline-of-covid-19-vaccine- developments-in-2021
understandability of machine learning based class predic- tion, and such prediction mechanisms in turn can be used to identify, isolate and counter misinformation. We elaborate further on the last point in our discussion of future work, while concluding the paper.
7 Classification of Misleading Tweets
Our analysis demonstrated that the writing styles of the Misleadingand Non-Misleading tweets are clearly distinct.
Now, we use these writing patterns as features in machine learning models to predict whether tweets are Misleading or not. The features, and not the actual content of the tweets is considered in the prediction task. The primary aim is to de- termine whether or not these writing styles are sufficient to categorize the tweets into Misleading and Non-Misleading tweets. In addition, we scrutinize the features in terms of their contribution to the prediction, in an effort to enhance understandability of the obtained results.
By providing the tweets as an input to the pre-trained XLNet model, the focus was to obtain the labels for the tweets. These labels are treated as ‘ground-truth’ for the prediction task using the features. In this section, instead of using the tweets themselves, we use the descriptive fea- tures described in the previous sections 4–6 as an input to the various machine learning models to classify Mislead- ingand Non-Misleading tweets. The purpose is to check if these descriptive features can distinguish Misleading tweets (it does). This helps us understand more explicitly the differentiating characteristics across non/misleading tweet.
Furthermore, such feature based classification can poten- tially be re-applied, as in transfer learning, to other do- mains beyond Covid-19. Specifically, the features constitute - Stop words, Pronouns, Nouns, Adjectives, Average length, WH-word, Adverbs, Conjunctions, Verbs, Determiners, TTR, Sentiments, Emotions, and Hashtags. The dataset was di- vided into balanced train and test set in an 80:20 ratio.
We apply five-fold cross-validation on the train set, which accounts for 80% of the entire data. Each fold further di- vides the train set into fold-train and fold-test sets to train and evaluate the model. Finally, we assess the performance of the trained model on the unseen test set, which is 20% of the entire data.
Table 7 shows the evaluation metrics for the test set, or- dered in descending order of accuracy. As it can be seen, the ensemble-based model, that is, Random Forest performs best in our case with an accuracy of 0.90, followed by Extra Trees, Decision Tree, and so on. This demonstrates that the writing styles can effectively segregate the Misleading and Non-Misleadingtweets. Furthermore, other measures from all models, such as Precision, Recall, F1 Score, and AUC (Area Under The Curve) ROC (Receiver Operating Charac- teristics) Score demonstrate that our results are consistent throughout, implying that the trained models are generaliz- able.
Table 7: Evaluation metrics on the test set. Top ten mod- els comprises Random Forest(RF), Extra Trees (XTS), De- cision Tree (DT), Extra Tree (XT) , Bagging (BG), NuSVC (NuSVC), K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), XG Boost (XGB), Light GBM (LGBM), AdaBoost (ADB). The highest value is shown in bold andbluecolor.
Models/Metrics ACC PR RC F1 AUC
RF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
XTS 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.89 0.90
DT 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
XT 0.88 0.88 0.85 0.87 0.88
BG 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.86
NuSVC 0.77 0.75 0.76 0.76 0.76
XGB 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
KNN 0.74 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73
LGBM 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.72
ADB 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70
7.1 Feature Importance
Next, to assess the contributions of each feature in the clas- sification task, we use the SHAP27Explainable AI tool. This tool assists us in determining the significant features in the prediction by computing the average marginal contributions of each feature. The importance of the features (or simply SHAP ranking) is shown in Figure 10 in descending order.
The most significant contributor, Sentiments, has a negative impact on prediction, implying that a lower value of Senti- mentspredicts Misleading class and vice versa. This makes sense because higher Sentiments values imply positive senti- ments, and lower values suggest negative sentiments, which is consistent with the findings from Section 5 that Mislead- ingtweets contain more negative sentiments. Furthermore, Nouns, Emotions, and Conjunctionsfeatures have negative impact on Misleading tweets. This implies that Misleading tweets contain less number of Nouns and Conjunctions com- pared to Non-Misleading tweets. This might be due to the fact that focus of the Misleading tweets is to use fancy words or catchy phrases to attract the readers rather than presenting proper facts using Nouns and Conjunctions. The remaining features have positive impact; for example, unlike Nouns, Misleadingtweets have a higher number of Pronouns than Non-Misleadingtweets.
Feature Ablation Study After evaluating the importance of features, we try to see if there is a decline in accuracy if particular features are not included. Essentially, we try a few different settings by removing some of the features based on their importance as determined by SHAP ranking in Figure 10 and then rerunning all the models in the same environ- ment. Note that we only show results of the best-performing model, Random Forest, due to space constraints. Please note that the best accuracy attained with all features is 90%.
We start by removing Emotions and the rest of the features listed below as per the SHAP plot. Table 8, row 1 summa- rizes the findings. When we remove these features from our
27https://shap.readthedocs.io/en/latest/index.html
0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
SHAP value (impact on model output) Hashtags
Avg_length Adjectives Determiner Type_token_ratio Conjunction Emotions Adverbs Stop_words Nouns Verbs Prounouns WH_words Sentiments
Low High
Feature value
Figure 10: Feature Importance using SHAP tool. The x-axis and y-axis denote the SHAP values and features’ names, respectively. Each data point refers to an instance of the dataset. Thered color indicates a higher value for the fea- ture than its average value, whereas thebluecolor denotes a lower value.Redvalues on the right side of the x-axis in- dicate a positive impact on the prediction and vice versa.
Features are sorted in descending order (best seen in color).
dataset, the values of the evaluation metrics decline, indi- cating that they are truly relevant. Next, we remove features that are less important than Emotions, such as Type token ratioand the remainder of the features (shown in Table 8, row 2). We continue to run experiments and discover that even the least significant feature, Hashtags, contributes to the model’s improvement. These results indicate that all of the features we discussed are both valuable and necessary for detecting Misleading tweets.
Table 8: Feature Ablation Study. ‘w/o Emo & BF’ denotes without Emotions and ‘Below listed Features’ (BF) as per SHAP plot in Figure 10. Likewise, ‘w/o TTR & BF’, ‘w/o Adj & BF’ denotes without Type Token Ratio and Below listed Features, without Adjective and Below listed Features respectively. The best results is presented in bold andblue color.
Features/Metrics ACC PR RC F1 AUC
w/o Emo & BF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 w/o TTR & BF 0.87 0.87 0.88 0.88 0.88 w/o Adj & BF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.89 w/o Hashtags 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 w/ ALL features 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Correlation and the SHAP Ranking Is there any associ- ation between the features’ correlation values and the SHAP ranking? The hypothesis is that the highly correlated fea- tures should be close in the SHAP ranking. The correla- tion between each feature pair are shown in Figure 11. The
Sentiments [1] WH_words [2] Pronouns [3] Verbs [4] Nouns [5] Stop_words [6] Adverbs [7] Emotions [8] Conjunction [9] Type_token_ratio [10] Determiner [11] Adjectives [12] Avg_length [13] Hashtags [14]
Sentiments [1]
WH_words [2]
Pronouns [3]
Verbs [4]
Nouns [5]
Stop_words [6]
Adverbs [7]
Emotions [8]
Conjunction [9]
Type_token_ratio [10]
Determiner [11]
Adjectives [12]
Avg_length [13]
Hashtags [14]
1 0.016 0.036 0.014 -0.016 0.03 0.022 -0.02 0.016 -0.025 -0.0086 0.018 -0.069 -0.0078 0.016 1 0.15 0.31 -0.0033 0.32 0.1 -0.019 0.039 -0.087 0.13 0.0099 -0.12 -0.029 0.036 0.15 1 0.52 0.0085 0.57 0.3 0.035 0.21 -0.24 0.16 0.0084 -0.37 -0.08 0.014 0.31 0.52 1 0.23 0.78 0.43 -0.015 0.38 -0.32 0.36 0.16 -0.29 -0.099 -0.016 -0.0033 0.0085 0.23 1 0.37 0.095 0.0058 0.44 -0.31 0.38 0.25 -0.071 -0.016 0.03 0.32 0.57 0.78 0.37 1 0.5 -0.022 0.66 -0.47 0.63 0.23 -0.44 -0.13 0.022 0.1 0.3 0.43 0.095 0.5 1 0.0012 0.24 -0.16 0.2 0.14 -0.21 -0.05 -0.02 -0.019 0.035 -0.015 0.0058 -0.022 0.0012 1 -0.048 -0.0066 -0.032 -0.027 -0.046 -0.025 0.016 0.039 0.21 0.38 0.44 0.66 0.24 -0.048 1 -0.36 0.43 0.24 -0.19 -0.088 -0.025 -0.087 -0.24 -0.32 -0.31 -0.47 -0.16 -0.0066 -0.36 1 -0.43 -0.15 0.24 0.036 -0.0086 0.13 0.16 0.36 0.38 0.63 0.2 -0.032 0.43 -0.43 1 0.14 -0.27 -0.099 0.018 0.0099 0.0084 0.16 0.25 0.23 0.14 -0.027 0.24 -0.15 0.14 1 0.11 0.23 -0.069 -0.12 -0.37 -0.29 -0.071 -0.44 -0.21 -0.046 -0.19 0.24 -0.27 0.11 1 0.34 -0.0078 -0.029 -0.08 -0.099 -0.016 -0.13 -0.05 -0.025 -0.088 0.036 -0.099 0.23 0.34 1
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Figure 11: Correlation of the features along with SHAP ranking (represented by the numbers in the square brackets ([])).
Each cell in the symmetric matrix represents the positive and negative correlation value between the feature pair. The dark color indicates a high correlation based on the absolute value, and likewise. Diagonal cells are the correlation with itself thus, showing the highest correlation.
dark color denotes a strong correlation between the two fea- tures based on the absolute value and vice versa. Please note that the correlation between the features does not surpass a certain threshold. This is why we use all of the features in the classification task. The numbers in the brackets next to the feature names correspond to the feature’s SHAP rank- ing. One thing to note is that the highly correlated features are always positive. Furthermore, it can be observed that highly correlated features are also close in SHAP ranking.
For instance, Stop words are highly correlated with Verbs and score near to each other in the SHAP ranking compared to the less correlated features. Sentiments and Determiners is another example. Sentiments are least correlated with Deter- minersand, thus, farther from each other in SHAP ranking, demonstrating that our hypothesis is indeed true.
8 Concluding remarks
In this paper, we carried out an exploratory analysis of the content and meta-information associated with tweets per- taining to Covid-19 vaccines to determine the characteris- tics of both Misleading and Non-Misleading tweets. The topic detection aspect of our study helped establish the main themes of discourse across these categories, as well as identify potentially distinguishing characteristics. The latter were explored as features to carry out a classification task, where the observed outcomes support explainability.
We observe that this explainability property coupled with the aforementioned identification of the topic of tweets, ac- tionable intelligence can be generated, which determines a principal thrust of our future work. In particular, the mecha- nisms studied in this current work can be used to preliminar-
ily shortlist potentially problematic tweets at an early stage and use that, in turn, to even identify accounts with pro- lific contribution is spreading misinformation, and accord- ingly (ii) put in targeted mechanisms to reduce the virulence of their spread until vetted for authenticity, and additionally or alternatively (ii) device or promote counter-messaging to mitigate and dispel such misinformation. Moreover, such counter-messages can be readily identified by using the same mechanism of topic detection and classification of Non-Misleading tweets. Furthermore, we want to explore whether the approach laid out can be generalized to identify Misleadingtweets on other topics beyond Covid-19 vacci- nation.
Beyond the extension of the work to the aforementioned application, there is also an opportunity to refine the tech- niques by carrying out an analysis that is fine-grained in ge- ographic, temporal, and linguistic dimensions: for example, which Misleading tweets are more prominent and specific to certain regions, which of them persist over what span of time, and doing so in languages beyond English.
References
Bosman, J.; Hoffman, J.; Sanger-Katz, M.; and Arango, T.
2021. Who are the unvaccinated in america? there’s no one answer.
Burki, T. 2020. The online anti-vaccine movement in the age of covid-19. The Lancet Digital Health 2(10):e504–e505.
Cossard, A.; De Francisci Morales, G.; Kalimeri, K.;
Mejova, Y.; Paolotti, D.; and Starnini, M. 2020. Falling into the echo chamber: The italian vaccination debate on
twitter. Proceedings of the International AAAI Confer- ence on Web and Social Media14(1):130–140.
Evanega, S.; Lynas, M.; Adams, J.; Smolenyak, K.; and In- sights, C. G. 2020. Coronavirus misinformation: quan- tifying sources and themes in the covid-19 ‘infodemic’.
JMIR Preprints19(10):2020.
Germani, F., and Biller-Andorno, N. 2021. The anti- vaccination infodemic on social media: A behavioral analysis. PloS one 16(3):e0247642.
Juneja, P., and Mitra, T. 2021. Auditing e-commerce plat- forms for algorithmically curated vaccine misinforma- tion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.08419.
Ma, J., and Stahl, L. 2017. A multimodal critical discourse analysis of anti-vaccination information on facebook. Li- brary & Information Science Research39(4):303–310.
Machingaidze, S., and Wiysonge, C. 2021. Understanding covid-19 vaccine hesitancy. Nature Medicine.
Mejova, Y., and Kalimeri, K. 2020. Advertisers jump on coronavirus bandwagon: Politics, news, and business.
arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.00923.
Mitra, T.; Counts, S.; and Pennebaker, J. 2016. Understand- ing anti-vaccination attitudes in social media. In Proceed- ings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, volume 10.
Mønsted, B., and Lehmann, S. 2019. Algorithmic detec- tion and analysis of vaccine-denialist sentiment clusters in social networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.12908.
Pan, S. J., and Yang, Q. 2009. A survey on transfer learning.
IEEE Transactions on knowledge and data engineering 22(10):1345–1359.
Potthast, M.; Kiesel, J.; Reinartz, K.; Bevendorff, J.; and Stein, B. 2017. A stylometric inquiry into hyperpartisan and fake news. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.05638.
Raghupathi, V.; Ren, J.; and Raghupathi, W. 2020. Studying public perception about vaccination: A sentiment analysis of tweets. International journal of environmental research and public health17(10):3464.
Sear, R. F.; Velasquez, N.; Leahy, R.; Restrepo, N. J.;
El Oud, S.; Gabriel, N.; Lupu, Y.; and Johnson, N. F.
2020. Quantifying covid-19 content in the online health opinion war using machine learning. Ieee Access 8:91886–91893.
The Center for Countering Digital Hate. 2021. The disin- formation dozen.
Wardle, C., and Singerman, E. 2021. Too little, too late:
social media companies’ failure to tackle vaccine misin- formation poses a real threat. bmj 372.
Yuan, X.; Schuchard, R. J.; and Crooks, A. T. 2019. Ex- amining emergent communities and social bots within the polarized online vaccination debate in twitter. Social Me- dia+ Society5(3):2056305119865465.