Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 165 references

Retweets, Receipts, and Resistance: Discourse, Sentiment, and Credibility in Public Health Crisis Twitter

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The CDC's COVID-era Twitter was a broadcast channel, not a conversation.

desk verdict Solid qualitative core ('receipts', one-way CDC communication) undermined by circular regressions and classifier features; worth reviewing seriously with revision requirements. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22032 v1 pith:AANESPZR submitted 2025-05-28 cs.SI cs.HC

Tawfiq Ammari , Anna Gutowska , Jacob Ziff , Casey Randazzo , Harihan Subramonyam This is my paper
classification cs.SIcs.HC
keywords COVID-19CDCTwittercrisiscommunicationsentimentpolarizationmisinformationcredibilityechochamberspublichealth
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the CDC used Twitter to reach millions, but this study of more than 275,000 tweets from, to, and about the agency finds that its account mostly broadcast rather than conversed. The paper's central claim is that the CDC's communication was effectively one-way: although users sent or directed over 21,000 tweets at @CDCgov, the account issued only 58 direct replies to 25 accounts. Around that quiet institutional voice, public discourse on vaccines and school masking was sharply polarized, with users circulating screenshots of earlier CDC guidance as 'receipts' to accuse the agency of contradiction. Low-credibility sources circulated through verified accounts and rich media, while the mention network showed reciprocal clusters that look like echo chambers. This matters because crisis-communication guidelines call for two-way engagement, and an unanswered public may be left with misinformation and hardened distrust.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a mixed-method pipeline applied to 275,124 tweets: a neural topic model that identified 71 topics grouped into five themes, a lexicon-based sentiment score for every tweet, a public list of low-credibility news domains used to flag unreliable sources, and nine platform signals including retweets, quote-tweets, likes, replies, rich media, verification, tweet count, tenure, and follower-following ratio. These features feed regressions and classifiers that explain what gets propagated, and an exponential random graph model of the 59,304-node directed mention network tests whether ties form along sentiment, credibility, and ideological lines. The decisive evidence for the one-way claim is direct: only 58 replies from @CDCgov to 25 accounts across two years.

What would settle it

Re-download the complete @CDCgov reply history for January 2020 through January 2022 from an archive that includes deleted tweets and count direct replies to non-organizational users; finding substantially more than 58 such replies would weaken the one-way communication claim. Independently, a re-run that adds retweets or expands the matching rule to include hashtags like #CDCgov could test whether the polarization and echo-chamber results survive sampling choices.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that the CDC's COVID-era Twitter presence was top-down: its tweets achieved high reach, with an echo ratio of 227.65 retweets per CDC tweet, while reciprocity was negligible. It documents that vaccine discourse and school-masking discourse had bimodal sentiment distributions, with positive clusters advocating public health measures, neutral clusters carrying logistical information, and negative clusters mixing misinformation and ideological resistance. Users strategically quoted earlier CDC messages as 'receipts' to challenge updated guidance, and accounts that cited low-credibility sources were more likely to initiate mentions but less likely to be mentioned back, while verified accounts were more likely to be retweeted yet also shared low-credibility content at comparable rates. The paper concludes that public health agencies need more dialogic communication and proposes an AI-assisted reply and moderation system to support it.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim rests on the completeness of the tweet collection: if the API capture missed, deleted, or mislabeled many tweets addressed to the CDC, or if the string-matching rule for 'CDC' excluded relevant threads, then the counts, including the 58 replies, could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the one-way finding holds, public health agencies should treat social media as a response channel rather than only a broadcast channel, and staff it accordingly.
  • If vaccine and school-masking discourse is bimodally polarized, communication strategies may need separate approaches for pro-public-health, logistical, and resistance audiences.
  • Because verified accounts amplified low-credibility content, verification alone is a weak credibility signal during health crises.
  • Because rich media increased propagation of both reliable and unreliable content, platforms and agencies should scrutinize visual misinformation rather than text alone.
  • Because users weaponized earlier guidance as 'receipts,' agencies should publish explicit change logs explaining how and why guidance evolved.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The 58-reply count is likely a lower bound, since deleted tweets and replies outside the collected conversation threads would be missed; a full archive audit would probably raise the number but may not change the qualitative asymmetry.
  • The echo-chamber result suggests a testable extension: neutral logistical messages may act as bridges across ideological clusters, and amplifying them could reduce fragmentation.
  • If verified accounts are as central to low-credibility circulation as the paper suggests, platform verification policies could be modified to include health-content accuracy checks during crises.
  • The paper's design proposal implies a measurable outcome: an AI-assisted reply system should be evaluated by whether reply latency and reply fraction increase public trust, not just by engagement counts.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper analyzes 275,124 tweets from, to, and about the CDC on Twitter during the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic, using a mixed-methods design that combines BERTopic topic modeling, VADER sentiment analysis, a low-credibility source list, engagement regressions, classifiers with SHAP explanations, and an ERGM of the mentions network. The central findings are that CDC communication was overwhelmingly one-directional (only 58 direct replies to 25 accounts out of over 21,000 tweets addressing the CDC), that public discourse was sharply polarized around vaccines and school masking, and that users posted 'receipts'—screenshots of earlier CDC messages—to critique perceived inconsistencies in guidance. The paper proposes design and policy recommendations, including a 'CDC AI Assistant' and more dialogic engagement infrastructure.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper makes a useful empirical contribution to crisis-communication research: it documents, at scale, the asymmetry between a public health agency's broadcast reach and its reciprocal engagement, and it shows how platform affordances such as quote-tweets and screenshot 'receipts' mediate credibility disputes during an evolving health crisis. The paper also demonstrates good qualitative practice by protecting user privacy through description rather than direct quotation, and it grounds its analysis in the CERC framework. However, the headline reciprocity statistic (58 direct replies) is load-bearing and depends on an extraction procedure that is not fully specified, and the regression analyses in Tables 3 and 4 include concurrent engagement metrics as predictors, which makes several coefficient claims partly mechanical. The absence of public data or code prevents independent verification of the counts. Despite these concerns, the qualitative examples and simple counts give credible support to the broad direction of the findings, and the issues are addressable through reanalysis and added transparency.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.1.2, §6.1.3, §8] The count of '58 direct responses from the official CDC account to 25 accounts based on a question or suggestion' is the linchpin of the one-way-communication conclusion, but the extraction rule is never specified. The paper does not state which API query or manual criterion identified 'direct responses ... based on a question or suggestion,' nor how conversation-ID expansion handled deleted parent tweets or rate-limited replies. Because a few hundred missed @CDCgov replies would reverse the 58/21,000 asymmetry, the manuscript should provide the exact extraction query/code, report the number of candidate replies examined, and bound the effect of deletions and rate limits. Section 7 does not currently acknowledge this fragility.
  2. [Tables 3 and 4] The regression models of retweets, likes, responses, and quote-tweets include concurrent engagement metrics as predictors (e.g., Like Count and Quote Count in the Retweets model; Retweet Count and Reply Count in the Likes model; Retweet Count and Reply Count in the Quote-tweets model). These variables are produced by the same propagation process as the outcome, so their large coefficients are partly mechanical and inflate the reported R² values. The causal-sounding claims in §5.1.1 and §6.1.1 about topic-level drivers should be based on models that either exclude contemporaneous engagement variables or use lagged values, with a clear statement that the current tables are descriptive correlations rather than evidence of causal influence.
  3. [§3] The corpus definition depends on matching queries ('@CDCgov', 'from @CDCgov', '#CDC', tagging @CDCgov, or mentioning the string 'CDC'), exclusion of retweets, and conversation-ID expansion. The string 'CDC' can match unrelated uses of the acronym, while reply threads whose parent tweet is deleted or whose anchor tweet does not match the filters may be missing. Because every count in the paper, including the 58-replies figure, inherits these sampling decisions, the paper should release or describe the query in full, report how the five match types overlap, and include a sensitivity analysis for the reply count. Section 7 lists limitations but does not mention this issue.
  4. [§4.1.1] The 71-topic model is a single BERTopic/HDBSCAN run selected by a coherence score of 0.39, with no stability analysis across random seeds or data subsamples reported. The qualitative labels for Topic 0 (vaccines) and Topic 26 (school masking) underpin the bimodality and polarization claims in §5.1.2 and Figure 2, so the authors should show that these clusters are reproducible and not artifacts of the particular minimum_cluster_size choice.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§1.2] The reference '[89] [89]' is duplicated in the first paragraph; one citation should be removed.
  2. [§5.1.3] 'Governer' is misspelled in the phrase 'Greg Abbott, the Texas Governer'; it should be 'Governor'.
  3. [§6.2] The 'CDC AI Assistant' is presented as a design recommendation; the wording should make explicit that it is a hypothetical proposal, not an existing or evaluated system, to avoid confusion.
  4. [Tables 5-7] The sentiment classifiers report near-perfect top-model AUC/accuracy (e.g., 0.999 for Positive, Neutral, and Negative). Because the labels are derived from VADER thresholds, this performance is expected and should be noted so readers do not interpret it as evidence about real-world sentiment discrimination.
  5. [§4.1.1] The qualitative coding process is described briefly (6,000 sampled tweets, consensus meetings), but no inter-rater reliability metrics or codebook excerpts are provided; an appendix with these details would strengthen the mixed-methods contribution.
  6. [§7] The limitations section does not discuss the potential undercount of CDC replies due to deleted tweets or API rate limits, despite the centrality of that count to the main conclusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claims are empirical corpus counts and externally labeled analyses, not fitted quantities renamed as predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claims are direct corpus counts and descriptive statistics, not quantities derived from the models. The '58 direct replies' count (Sec. 5.1.2 and 6.1.3) and the one-way-communication conclusion (Sec. 8) rest on the corpus-construction rule described in Sec. 3 and on manual counting; debate about API completeness or deletion is a data-quality threat, not a circular derivation. The regression models in Tables 3 and 4 predict engagement measures using contemporaneous engagement variables such as likes, replies, and retweets, which is a statistical endogeneity concern, but the target variable for each regression does not appear among the listed top predictors, so the reported coefficients are not simply the outcome re-entered as its own predictor. The paper is imprecise in saying that all 82 features, including platform signals, were used for all models, since that would nominally include each outcome variable, but the tables do not show the outcome among the significant predictors; I therefore do not treat this as an actual by-construction reduction. The sentiment, credibility, and rich-media classifiers use external labels (VADER, Iffy Index, and image flags) rather than defining those labels in terms of the engagement outcomes they are used to explain. The self-citations, e.g., [3], [69], [109], [110], [122], and [145], are methodological examples, related prior work, or future-work suggestions; none carries the load of the CDC one-way-communication or polarization findings. No step in the derivation chain equates a predicted quantity with an input by definition, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The analysis is descriptive and exploratory. It relies on standard NLP tools and one external credibility index, plus model choices (topic model granularity, regression alphas, classifier hyperparameters) that are fit to the data. No new physical entities are introduced; the only invented system is an untested design recommendation.

free parameters (6)
  • HDBSCAN minimum_cluster_size = 45
    Chosen by maximizing topic coherence across 25 models; determines the 71-topic structure used as regression and classifier features.
  • Ridge regression alpha (retweets) = 0.31
    Tuned via random search; reported in Table 3.
  • Ridge regression alpha (likes) = 0.34
    Tuned via random search; reported in Table 3.
  • Ridge regression alpha (responses) = 0.31
    Tuned via random search; reported in Table 4.
  • Ridge regression alpha (quote-tweets) = 0.68
    Tuned via random search; reported in Table 4.
  • Classifier hyperparameters (estimators, max_depth, learning rate) = e.g., GBC est=150, max_depth=5; RF est=100, min_samples_leaf=5 or 2
    Selected by grid search with 5-fold cross-validation; reported in Tables 5-7.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Twitter API (twarc) returned a complete sample of US English tweets to, from, or about CDC and their conversation threads.
    Section 3: the entire dataset depends on this collection, but API recall, deleted tweets, and rate limits are not audited.
  • domain assumption VADER sentiment scores accurately represent sentiment in public health discourse.
    Section 4.1.2: VADER is applied without domain-specific validation, and its labels are used as both outcome and feature.
  • domain assumption Iffy Index and Media Bias/Fact Check correctly identify low-credibility sources.
    Section 4.1.3: credibility labels inherit the external index's judgments, which may not match public health relevance.
  • ad hoc to paper BERTopic with HDBSCAN at minimum_cluster_size=45 produces stable, interpretable topics.
    Section 4.1.1: selection is based on coherence score only; no stability check or full human validation of all 71 topics is reported.
  • domain assumption The ERGM on the 59,304-node mentions network converges and the model specification is adequate.
    Section 4.2.3 and Table 8: convergence diagnostics and goodness-of-fit tests are not reported.
invented entities (1)
  • CDC AI Assistant
    purpose: Proposed system to draft replies to @CDCgov and to flag suspected misinformation.
    Section 6.2: this is a design recommendation only; no prototype, evaluation, or deployment is described.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Retweets, Receipts, and Resistance: Discourse, Sentiment, and Credibility in Public Health Crisis Twitter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AANESPZR

@misc{pith2026250522032,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Retweets, Receipts, and Resistance: Discourse, Sentiment, and Credibility in Public Health Crisis Twitter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AANESPZR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22032}
}
read the original abstract

As the COVID-19 pandemic evolved, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) used Twitter to disseminate safety guidance and updates, reaching millions of users. This study analyzes two years of tweets from, to, and about the CDC using a mixed methods approach to examine discourse characteristics, credibility, and user engagement. We found that the CDCs communication remained largely one directional and did not foster reciprocal interaction, while discussions around COVID19 were deeply shaped by political and ideological polarization. Users frequently cited earlier CDC messages to critique new and sometimes contradictory guidance. Our findings highlight the role of sentiment, media richness, and source credibility in shaping the spread of public health messages. We propose design strategies to help the CDC tailor communications to diverse user groups and manage misinformation more effectively during high-stakes health crises.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.22032 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Topic groupings into themes (3) Year online: The year the site was established (4) Name: The site name (5) Factual categorization: Very high, high, mostly factual, mixed, low, very low (6) Bias (least biased/pro-science, right-center/left-center, left/right, questionable/conspiracy pseudoscience) The Iffy Index only includes sites with a low-credibility rating and categorizes as either Conspir￾acy/Pseudoscience (CP)… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. This figure shows the sentiment distribution for two highly propagated topics—Topic 0 (vaccination [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. This figure displays a CDC-generated infographic highlighting updated school safety protocols in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: This figure juxtaposes two public-facing CDC messages: one (left) suggesting that vaccinated individ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Mention co-occurrence network showing top accounts mentioned along with the CDC account. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

165 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Julia Abelson, Fiona A Miller, and Mita Giacomini. 2009. What does it mean to trust a health system?: A qualitative study of Canadian health care values. Health policy 91, 1 (2009), 63–70

    2009

  2. [2]

    Hunt Allcott, Matthew Gentzkow, and Chuan Yu. 2019. Trends in the diffusion of misinformation on social media. Research & politics 6, 2 (2019), 2053168019848554

    2019

  3. [3]

    Tawfiq Ammari, Sarita Schoenebeck, and Daniel Romero. 2019. Self-declared Throwaway Accounts on Reddit: How Platform Affordances and Shared Norms enable Parenting Disclosure and Support. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 3, CSCW, Article 135 (nov 2019), 30 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359237

    doi:10.1145/3359237 2019

  4. [4]

    Isabel Anger and Christian Kittl. 2011. Measuring influence on Twitter. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Knowledge Technologies (Graz, Austria) (i-KNOW ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 31, 4 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/2024288.2024326

    work page arXiv 2011

  5. [5]

    Marianne Aubin Le Quéré, Hope Schroeder, Casey Randazzo, Jie Gao, Ziv Epstein, Simon Tangi Perrault, David Mimno, Louise Barkhuus, and Hanlin Li. 2024. LLMs as research tools: Applications and evaluations in HCI data work. In Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–7. 24 Retweets, Receipts, and Resistance: Discou...

    2024

  6. [6]

    Robert Axelrod and William D Hamilton. 1981. The evolution of cooperation. science 211, 4489 (1981), 1390–1396

    1981

  7. [7]

    Christian Baden, Neta Kligler-Vilenchik, and Moran Yarchi. 2020. Hybrid content analysis: Toward a strategy for the theory-driven, computer-assisted classification of large text corpora. Communication Methods and Measures 14, 3 (2020), 165–183

    2020

  8. [8]

    Hofman, Winter A

    Eytan Bakshy, Jake M. Hofman, Winter A. Mason, and Duncan J. Watts. 2011. Everyone’s an influencer: quantifying influence on twitter. In Proceedings of the Fourth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (Hong Kong, China) (WSDM ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 65–74. https://doi.org/10. 1145/1935826.1935845

    arXiv 2011

Show all 165 references
  1. [9]

    Ghazaleh Beigi, Xia Hu, Ross Maciejewski, and Huan Liu. 2016. An overview of sentiment analysis in social media and its applications in disaster relief. Sentiment analysis and ontology engineering: An environment of computational intelligence (2016), 313–340

    2016

  2. [10]

    Blei and John D

    David M. Blei and John D. Lafferty. 2006. Dynamic Topic Models. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML ’06) . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 113–120. https://doi.org/10.1145/1143844.1143859

    2006

  3. [11]

    Enrique Bonsón, David Perea, and Michaela Bednárová. 2019. Twitter as a tool for citizen engagement: An empirical study of the Andalusian municipalities. Government information quarterly 36, 3 (2019), 480–489

    2019

  4. [12]

    Danah Boyd, Scott Golder, and Gilad Lotan. 2010. Tweet, tweet, retweet: Conversational aspects of retweeting on twitter. In 2010 43rd Hawaii international conference on system sciences . IEEE, 1–10

    2010

  5. [13]

    Lia Bozarth, Jane Im, Christopher Quarles, and Ceren Budak. 2023. Wisdom of Two Crowds: Misinformation Moderation on Reddit and How to Improve this Process—A Case Study of COVID-19. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 7, CSCW1, Article 155 (April 2023), 33 pages. https://doi.org/...

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    Amy Bruckman. 2002. Studying the amateur artist: A perspective on disguising data collected in human subjects research on the Internet. Ethics and Information Technology 4, 3 (2002), 217–231

    2002

  7. [15]

    Michael Brüggemann and Hendrik Meyer. 2023. When debates break apart: discursive polarization as a multi- dimensional divergence emerging in and through communication. Communication Theory 33, 2-3 (2023), 132–142

    2023

  8. [16]

    Ricardo J. G. B. Campello, Davoud Moulavi, and Joerg Sander. 2013. Density-Based Clustering Based on Hierarchical Density Estimates. In Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (Lecture Notes in Computer Science) , Jian Pei, Vincent S. Tseng, Longbing Cao, Hiroshi Motod...

    2013 doi

  9. [17]

    Christina Casley. 2010. Denying AIDS: Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience and human tragedy, by Seth Kalichman. African Affairs 109, 436 (07 2010), 505–506. https://doi.org/10.1093/afraf/adq035 arXiv:https://academic.oup.com/afraf/article-pdf/109/436/505/343049/adq035.pdf

    2010 doi

  10. [18]

    Boyd-Graber, and David M

    Jonathan Chang, Sean Gerrish, Chong Wang, Jordan L. Boyd-Graber, and David M. Blei. 2009. Reading tea leaves: How humans interpret topic models. In Advances in neural information processing systems . 288–296

    2009

  11. [19]

    Sheng Chen, Akshay Soni, Aasish Pappu, and Yashar Mehdad. 2017. Doctag2vec: An embedding based multi-label learning approach for document tagging. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.04596 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Facts, not fear

    Kajsa E Dalrymple, Rachel Young, and Melissa Tully. 2016. “Facts, not fear” negotiating uncertainty on social media during the 2014 Ebola crisis. Science communication 38, 4 (2016), 442–467

    2016

  13. [21]

    James Dennison and Andrew Geddes. 2019. A rising tide? The salience of immigration and the rise of anti-immigration political parties in Western Europe. The political quarterly 90, 1 (2019), 107–116

    2019

  14. [22]

    DeVito, Jeremy Birnholtz, and Jeffery T

    Michael A. DeVito, Jeremy Birnholtz, and Jeffery T. Hancock. [n. d.]. Platforms, people, and perception: using affordances to understand self-presentation on social media. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (Ne...

    2017

  15. [23]

    Wenwen Dou, Xiaoyu Wang, Remco Chang, and William Ribarsky. 2011. ParallelTopics: A probabilistic approach to exploring document collections. In 2011 IEEE Conference on Visual Analytics Science and Technology (V AST). 231–240. https://doi.org/10.1109/VAST.2011.6102461

    2011

  16. [24]

    David M Dozier, Larissa A Grunig, and James E Grunig. 2013. Manager’s guide to excellence in public relations and communication management. Routledge

    2013

  17. [25]

    Tingting Du, Prasanna Umar, Sarah Rajtmajer, and Anna Squicciarini. 2022. The contribution of verified accounts to self-disclosure in COVID-related Twitter conversations. In Proceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media, Vol. 16. 1393–1397

    2022

  18. [26]

    Kayla Duskin. 2024. Stemming the Tide of Problematic Information in Online Environments: Assessing Interventions and Identifying Opportunities for Interruption. In Companion Publication of the 16th ACM Web Science Conference (Stuttgart, Germany) (Websci Companion ’24). Associa...

    2024

  19. [27]

    Roman Egger and Joanne Yu. 2022. A topic modeling comparison between lda, nmf, top2vec, and bertopic to demystify twitter posts. Frontiers in sociology 7 (2022), 886498. 25 CSCW’26, , Ammari et al

    2022

  20. [28]

    Shihab Elbagir and Jing Yang. 2019. Twitter sentiment analysis using natural language toolkit and VADER sentiment. In Proceedings of the international multiconference of engineers and computer scientists , Vol. 122. 16

    2019

  21. [29]

    Camille G Endacott and Paul M Leonardi. 2022. Artificial intelligence and impression management: Consequences of autonomous conversational agents communicating on one’s behalf. Human Communication Research 48, 3 (2022), 462–490

    2022

  22. [30]

    Robert M Entman. 1993. Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of communication 43, 4 (1993), 51–58

    1993

  23. [31]

    Lee-Ann Ewing and Huy Quan Vu. 2021. Navigating ‘home schooling’during COVID-19: Australian public response on twitter. Media International Australia 178, 1 (2021), 77–86

    2021

  24. [32]

    Samer Faraj and Bijan Azad. [n. d.]. The Materiality of Technology: An Affordance Perspective. In Materiality and Organizing: Social Interaction in a Technological World . 237–258. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199664054. 003.0012 Journal Abbreviation: Materiality and...

  25. [33]

    Tom Fawcett. 2006. An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern recognition letters 27, 8 (2006), 861–874

    2006

  26. [34]

    Ulrike Felt and Sarah R Davies. 2020. Exploring science communication: A science and technology studies approach . Sage

    2020

  27. [35]

    Participant

    Casey Fiesler and Nicholas Proferes. 2018. “Participant” Perceptions of Twitter Research Ethics. Social Media + Society 4, 1 (Jan. 2018), 2056305118763366. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118763366 Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd

    2018 doi

  28. [36]

    Renee C Fox. 2012. Medical uncertainty revisited. In Gender, health and healing. Routledge, 236–253

    2012

  29. [37]

    Deen Freelon, Charlton D McIlwain, and Meredith Clark. 2016. Beyond the hashtags:# Ferguson,# Blacklivesmatter, and the online struggle for offline justice. Center for Media & Social Impact, American University, Forthcoming (2016)

    2016

  30. [38]

    Kiran Garimella, Ingmar Weber, and Munmun De Choudhury. 2016. Quote RTs on Twitter: usage of the new feature for political discourse. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Web Science (Hannover, Germany) (WebSci ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, US...

    2016

  31. [39]

    Anat Gesser-Edelsburg, Emilio Mordini, James J James, Donato Greco, and Manfred S Green. 2014. Risk communication recommendations and implementation during emerging infectious diseases: a case study of the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. Disaster medicine and public health prepa...

    2014

  32. [40]

    Sandra González-Bailón and Manlio De Domenico. 2021. Bots are less central than verified accounts during contentious political events. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, 11 (2021), e2013443118

    2021

  33. [41]

    Michael F Goodchild. 2007. Citizens as sensors: the world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal 69 (2007), 211–221

    2007

  34. [42]

    Melissa W Graham. 2014. Government communication in the digital age: Social media’s effect on local govern- ment public relations. Public Relations Inquiry 3, 3 (2014), 361–376. https://doi.org/10.1177/2046147X14545371 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/2046147X14545371

    2014 doi

  35. [43]

    Griffiths, Mark Steyvers, and Joshua B

    Thomas L. Griffiths, Mark Steyvers, and Joshua B. Tenenbaum. 2007. Topics in semantic representation. Psychological Review 114 (2007), 211–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.2.211 Place: US Publisher: American Psychological Association

    2007 doi

  36. [44]

    Maarten Grootendorst. 2022. BERTopic: Neural topic modeling with a class-based TF-IDF procedure. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.05794 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  37. [45]

    James E Grunig and Larissa A Grunig. 2008. Excellence theory in public relations: Past, present, and future. In Public relations research: European and international perspectives and innovations . Springer, 327–347

    2008

  38. [46]

    Pine, and Yunan Chen

    Xinning Gui, Yubo Kou, Kathleen H. Pine, and Yunan Chen. 2017. Managing Uncertainty: Using Social Media for Risk Assessment during a Public Health Crisis. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Denver, Colorado, USA) (CHI ’17). Associa...

    2017

  39. [47]

    Siddharth Gulati, Joe McDonagh, Sonia Sousa, and David Lamas. 2024. Trust models and theories in human–computer interaction: A systematic literature review. Computers in Human Behavior Reports 16 (2024), 100495. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.chbr.2024.100495

    2024

  40. [48]

    Aditi Gupta, Hemank Lamba, Ponnurangam Kumaraguru, and Anupam Joshi. 2013. Faking sandy: characterizing and identifying fake images on twitter during hurricane sandy. In Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on World Wide Web. 729–736

    2013

  41. [49]

    Nikhil Haas. [n. d.]. Regressors: Easy utilities for fitting various regressors, extracting stats, and making relevant plots with scikit-learn models. https://github.com/nsh87/regressors. Accessed: 2025-03-05

    2025

  42. [50]

    Mark S Handcock, David R Hunter, Carter T Butts, Steven M Goodreau, Pavel N Krivitsky, Skye Bender-deMoll, Martina Morris, and Maintainer Martina Morris. 2019. Package ‘statnet’

    2019

  43. [51]

    Cynthia Hardy, Thomas B Lawrence, and David Grant. 2005. Discourse and collaboration: The role of conversations and collective identity. Academy of management review 30, 1 (2005), 58–77

    2005

  44. [52]

    Mallory J Harris, Ryan Murtfeldt, Shufan Wang, Erin A Mordecai, and Jevin D West. 2024. Perceived experts are prevalent and influential within an antivaccine community on Twitter. PNAS nexus 3, 2 (2024), pgae007. 26 Retweets, Receipts, and Resistance: Discourse, Sentiment, and...

    2024

  45. [53]

    Liberate

    Michael Robert Haupt, Alex Jinich-Diamant, Jiawei Li, Matthew Nali, and Tim K Mackey. 2021. Characterizing twitter user topics and communication network dynamics of the “Liberate” movement during COVID-19 using unsupervised machine learning and social network analysis. Online ...

    2021

  46. [54]

    Hayawi, S

    K. Hayawi, S. Shahriar, M.A. Serhani, I. Taleb, and S.S. Mathew. 2022. ANTi-Vax: a novel Twitter dataset for COVID-19 vaccine misinformation detection. Public Health 203 (2022), 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2021.11.022

    2022 doi

  47. [55]

    Sharon Hays. 1998. The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood. Yale University Press. Google-Books-ID: 5r5obtRneqoC

    1998

  48. [56]

    Jeff Hemsley, Jennifer Stromer-Galley, Bryan Semaan, and Sikana Tanupabrungsun. 2018. Tweeting to the target: candidates’ use of strategic messages and@ mentions on Twitter. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 15, 1 (2018), 3–18

    2018

  49. [57]

    Ali Hobbs, Aisha Aldosery, and Patty Kostkova. 2024. Low credibility URL sharing on Twitter during reporting linking rare blood clots with the Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. Plos one 19, 1 (2024), e0296444

    2024

  50. [58]

    David Howarth. 2000. Discourse. McGraw-Hill Education (UK)

    2000

  51. [59]

    Alexander A Huang and Samuel Y Huang. 2023. Increasing transparency in machine learning through bootstrap simulation and shapely additive explanations. PLoS One 18, 2 (2023), e0281922

    2023

  52. [60]

    Thornton, and Efthimis N

    Jeff Huang, Katherine M. Thornton, and Efthimis N. Efthimiadis. 2010. Conversational tagging in twitter. InProceedings of the 21st ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia (Toronto, Ontario, Canada) (HT ’10) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 173–178. ...

    2010

  53. [61]

    Xiao Huang, Siqin Wang, Mengxi Zhang, Tao Hu, Alexander Hohl, Bing She, Xi Gong, Jianxin Li, Xiao Liu, Oliver Gruebner, Regina Liu, Xiao Li, Zhewei Liu, Xinyue Ye, and Zhenlong Li. 2022. Social media mining under the COVID-19 context: Progress, challenges, and opportunities. I...

    2022

  54. [62]

    Yo-Ping Huang, Nontobeko Hlongwane, and Li-Jen Kao. 2018. Using Sentiment Analysis to Determine Users’ Likes on Twitter. In 2018 IEEE 16th Intl Conf on Dependable, Autonomic and Secure Computing, 16th Intl Conf on Pervasive Intelligence and Computing, 4th Intl Conf on Big Data...

    2018

  55. [63]

    Clayton Hutto and Eric Gilbert. 2014. Vader: A parsimonious rule-based model for sentiment analysis of social media text. In Proceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media , Vol. 8. 216–225

    2014

  56. [64]

    Muhammad Javed, Gerardo Luis Dimaguila, Sedigh Khademi Habibabadi, Chris Palmer, and Jim Buttery. 2023. Learning from Machines? Social Bots Influence on COVID-19 Vaccination-Related Discussions: 2021 in Review. In Proceedings of the 2023 Australasian Computer Science Week (Mel...

    2023

  57. [65]

    Maximilian Jenders, Gjergji Kasneci, and Felix Naumann. 2013. Analyzing and predicting viral tweets. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on World Wide Web (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) (WWW ’13 Companion) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 657...

    2013

  58. [66]

    Shagun Jhaver, Alice Qian Zhang, Quan Ze Chen, Nikhila Natarajan, Ruotong Wang, and Amy X. Zhang. 2023. Personalizing Content Moderation on Social Media: User Perspectives on Moderation Choices, Interface Design, and Labor. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 7, CSCW2, Article 28...

    2023 doi

  59. [67]

    Tingting Jiang, Qian Guo, Yaping Xu, and Shiting Fu. 2019. A diary study of information encountering triggered by visual stimuli on micro-blogging services. Information Processing & Management 56, 1 (2019), 29–42

    2019

  60. [68]

    Zhiwei Jin, Juan Cao, Yongdong Zhang, Jianshe Zhou, and Qi Tian. 2016. Novel visual and statistical image features for microblogs news verification. IEEE transactions on multimedia 19, 3 (2016), 598–608

    2016

  61. [69]

    If it has an exclamation point, I step away from it, I need facts, not excited feelings

    Karen Joy, Michelle Liang, and Tawfiq Ammari. 2024. " If it has an exclamation point, I step away from it, I need facts, not excited feelings": Technologically Mediated Parental COVID Uncertainty. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.05181 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Anders Kallner. 2017. Laboratory statistics: methods in chemistry and health sciences . Elsevier

    2017

  63. [71]

    Brian Keegan, Darren Gergle, and Noshir Contractor. 2012. Do Editors or Articles Drive Collaboration? Multilevel Statistical Network Analysis of Wikipedia Coauthorship. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (Seattle, Washington, USA) ...

    2012

  64. [72]

    Jaehee Kim. 2025. Basic issues and challenges of statistical network analysis.Communications for Statistical Applications & Methods 32, 1 (2025)

    2025

  65. [73]

    Jihie Kim and Jaebong Yoo. 2012. Role of sentiment in message propagation: Reply vs. retweet behavior in political communication. In 2012 international conference on social informatics . IEEE, 131–136

    2012

  66. [74]

    Yubo Kou, Xinning Gui, Yunan Chen, and Kathleen Pine. 2017. Conspiracy Talk on Social Media: Collective Sense- making during a Public Health Crisis. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 1, CSCW, Article 61 (dec 2017), 21 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3134696 27 CSCW’26, , Ammari et al

    2017 doi

  67. [75]

    Fani Kountouri and Andreas Kollias. 2023. Polarizing publics in Twitter through organic targeting tactics of political incivility. Frontiers in Political Science 5 (2023), 1110953

    2023

  68. [76]

    Stephen Wai Hang Kwok, Sai Kumar Vadde, and Guanjin Wang. 2021. Tweet topics and sentiments relating to COVID-19 vaccination among Australian Twitter users: machine learning analysis.Journal of medical Internet research 23, 5 (2021), e26953

    2021

  69. [77]

    Kenneth A Lachlan, Patric R Spence, Xialing Lin, Kristy Najarian, and Maria Del Greco. 2016. Social media and crisis management: CERC, search strategies, and Twitter content. Computers in Human Behavior 54 (2016), 647–652

    2016

  70. [78]

    Judith Walzer Leavitt. 2003. Public resistance or cooperation? A tale of smallpox in two cities. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science 1, 3 (2003), 185–192

    2003

  71. [79]

    Mina Lee, Percy Liang, and Qian Yang. 2022. CoAuthor: Designing a Human-AI Collaborative Writing Dataset for Exploring Language Model Capabilities. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (CHI ’22). Association for...

    2022

  72. [80]

    Stanley Lemeshow and David W Hosmer Jr. 1982. A review of goodness of fit statistics for use in the development of logistic regression models. American journal of epidemiology 115, 1 (1982), 92–106

    1982

  73. [81]

    Leonardi and Emmanuelle Vaast

    Paul M. Leonardi and Emmanuelle Vaast. [n. d.]. Social Media and Their Affordances for Organizing: A Review and Agenda for Research. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2993824

  74. [82]

    Kai Li, Cheng Zhou, Xin (Robert) Luo, Jose Benitez, and Qinyu Liao. 2022. Impact of information timeliness and richness on public engagement on social media during COVID-19 pandemic: An empirical investigation based on NLP and machine learning. Decision Support Systems 162 (20...

    2022

  75. [83]

    Song Liao, Ebuka Okpala, Long Cheng, Mingqi Li, Nishant Vishwamitra, Hongxin Hu, Feng Luo, and Matthew Costello. 2023. Analysis of COVID-19 Offensive Tweets and Their Targets. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (Long Beach, ...

    2023

  76. [84]

    Eden Litt. 2012. Knock, knock. Who’s there? The imagined audience. Journal of broadcasting & electronic media 56, 3 (2012), 330–345

    2012

  77. [85]

    Scott M Lundberg and Su-In Lee. 2017. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (2017)

    2017

  78. [86]

    Ingrid Lunden. 2020. Twitter prioritizes blue-check verifications to confirm experts on COVID-19 and the novel coronavirus. TechCrunch (2020). https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/21/twitter-prioritizes-bluecheck-verifications-to- confirm-experts-on-covid-19-and-the-novel-coronaviru...

    2020

  79. [87]

    Dean Lusher, Johan Koskinen, and Garry Robins. 2013. Exponential random graph models for social networks: Theory, methods, and applications. Cambridge University Press

    2013

  80. [88]

    Kamaran H Manguri, Rebaz N Ramadhan, and Pshko R Mohammed Amin. 2020. Twitter sentiment analysis on worldwide COVID-19 outbreaks. Kurdistan Journal of Applied Research (2020), 54–65

    2020

  81. [89]

    Joao Marecos, Duarte Tude Graça, Francisco Goiana-da Silva, Hutan Ashrafian, and Ara Darzi. 2024. Source Credibility Labels and Other Nudging Interventions in the Context of Online Health Misinformation: A Systematic Literature Review. Journalism and Media 5, 2 (2024), 702–717...

    2024 doi

  82. [90]

    Mora Matassi and Pablo J Boczkowski. 2023. To know is to compare: Studying social media across nations, media, and Platforms. MIT Press

    2023

  83. [91]

    Lucy McDonald. 2021. Please like this paper. Philosophy 96, 3 (2021), 335–358

    2021

  84. [92]

    Nora McDonald, Sarita Schoenebeck, and Andrea Forte. 2019. Reliability and Inter-rater Reliability in Qualitative Research: Norms and Guidelines for CSCW and HCI Practice. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 3, CSCW, Article 72 (nov 2019), 23 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359174

    2019 doi

  85. [93]

    Shannon C McGregor. 2019. Social media as public opinion: How journalists use social media to represent public opinion. Journalism 20, 8 (2019), 1070–1086

    2019

  86. [94]

    Meta. 2025. Expand your world with Meta AI. https://ai.meta.com/meta-ai/ Accessed: 2025-03-24

    2025

  87. [95]

    Tomas Mikolov, Kai Chen, Greg Corrado, and Jeffrey Dean. 2013. Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Space. arXiv:1301.3781 [cs] (Jan. 2013). http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.3781 arXiv: 1301.3781

    2013 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Ann Neville Miller, Chad Collins, Lindsay Neuberger, Andrew Todd, Timothy L Sellnow, and Laura Boutemen

  89. [97]

    Zarmeen Nasim and Quratulain Rajput. 2017. Understanding role of Twitter in addressing social causes. In 2017 International Conference on Innovations in Electrical Engineering and Computational Technologies (ICIEECT) . 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIEECT.2017.7916528 28 Retwe...

    2017

  90. [98]

    Nisbet, Dominique Brossard, and Adrianne Kroepsch

    Matthew C. Nisbet, Dominique Brossard, and Adrianne Kroepsch. 2003. Framing Science: The Stem Cell Controversy in an Age of Press/Politics. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 8, 2 (2003), 36–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1081180X02251047 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.11...

    2003 doi

  91. [99]

    Leysia Palen and Kenneth M Anderson. 2016. Crisis informatics—New data for extraordinary times. Science 353, 6296 (2016), 224–225

    2016

  92. [100]

    Zizi Papacharissi. 2016. Affective publics and structures of storytelling: Sentiment, events and mediality. Information, communication & society 19, 3 (2016), 307–324

    2016

  93. [101]

    Bernstein

    Joon Sung Park, Joseph O’Brien, Carrie Jun Cai, Meredith Ringel Morris, Percy Liang, and Michael S. Bernstein. 2023. Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (San Franc...

    2023

  94. [102]

    Indraneil Paul, Abhinav Khattar, Ponnurangam Kumaraguru, Manish Gupta, and Shaan Chopra. 2019. Elites tweet? Characterizing the Twitter verified user network. In 2019 IEEE 35th International Conference on Data Engineering Workshops (ICDEW). IEEE, 278–285

    2019

  95. [103]

    Pavelko and Jessica Gall Myrick

    Rachelle L. Pavelko and Jessica Gall Myrick. [n. d.]. Muderinos and media effects: How the my favorite murder podcast and its social media community may promote well-being in audiences with mental illness. 27, 1 ([n. d.]), 151–169. https: //doi.org/10.1080/19376529.2019.163892...

  96. [104]

    Fabian Pedregosa, Gaël Varoquaux, Alexandre Gramfort, Vincent Michel, Bertrand Thirion, Olivier Grisel, Mathieu Blondel, Peter Prettenhofer, Ron Weiss, Vincent Dubourg, et al. 2011. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. the Journal of machine Learning research 12 (2011), 2825–2830

    2011

  97. [105]

    Francesco Pierri, Matthew R DeVerna, Kai-Cheng Yang, David Axelrod, John Bryden, and Filippo Menczer. 2023. One Year of COVID-19 Vaccine Misinformation on Twitter: Longitudinal Study.J Med Internet Res 25 (24 Feb 2023), e42227. https://doi.org/10.2196/42227

    2023 doi

  98. [106]

    Whitman, Yunan Chen, and Kathryn Henne

    Kathleen H Pine, Myeong Lee, Samantha A. Whitman, Yunan Chen, and Kathryn Henne. 2021. Making Sense of Risk Information amidst Uncertainty: Individuals’ Perceived Risks Associated with the COVID-19 Pandemic. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computin...

    2021

  99. [107]

    Jonathan Potter and Margaret Wetherell. 1987. Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. Sage Publications, Inc

    1987

  100. [108]

    Christophe Premat, Jean-Michel De Waele, and Michel Perottino. 2024. Introduction: The legitimacy of experts in the public space during the pandemic. Comparing the place of experts during the first waves of the COVID-19 pandemic (2024), 14–30

    2024

  101. [109]

    Marianne Aubin Le Quéré, Hope Schroeder, Casey Randazzo, and Jie Gao. 2025. The State of Large Language Models in HCI Research: Workshop Report. Interactions 32, 1 (2025), 8–9

    2025

  102. [110]

    If Someone Downvoted My Posts—That’d Be the End of the World

    Casey Randazzo and Tawfiq Ammari. 2023. “If Someone Downvoted My Posts—That’d Be the End of the World”: Designing Safer Online Spaces for Trauma Survivors. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany) (CHI ’23). Association...

    2023

  103. [111]

    H Raghav Rao, Naga Vemprala, Patricia Akello, and Rohit Valecha. 2020. Retweets of officials’ alarming vs reassuring messages during the COVID-19 pandemic: Implications for crisis management. International Journal of Information Management 55 (2020), 102187

    2020

  104. [112]

    Chamil Rathnayake and Daniel D. Suthers. 2017. Twitter Issue Response Hashtags as Affordances for Momentary Connectedness. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Social Media & Society (Toronto, ON, Canada) (#SMSociety17). Association for Computing Machinery, Ne...

    2017

  105. [113]

    Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks. (Aug. 2019). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1908.10084

    2019 doi arXiv

  106. [114]

    Ortwin Renn. 2015. Stakeholder and public involvement in risk governance. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science 6 (2015), 8–20

    2015

  107. [115]

    Christian Reuter, Amanda Lee Hughes, and Marc-André Kaufhold. 2018. Social media in crisis management: An evaluation and analysis of crisis informatics research. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 34, 4 (2018), 280–294

    2018

  108. [116]

    Barbara Reynolds and Matthew W Seeger. 2005. Crisis and emergency risk communication as an integrative model. Journal of health communication 10, 1 (2005), 43–55

    2005

  109. [117]

    Garry Robins and Dean Lusher. 2012. What Are Exponential Random Graph Models? Cambridge University Press, 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511894701.003 29 CSCW’26, , Ammari et al

    2012 doi

  110. [118]

    Michael Röder, Andreas Both, and Alexander Hinneburg. 2015. Exploring the Space of Topic Coherence Measures. In Proceedings of the Eighth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM ’15) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 399–408. ht...

    2015

  111. [119]

    Gaurav Sahu, Robin Cohen, and Olga Vechtomova. 2021. Towards a multi-agent system for online hate speech detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.01129 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  112. [120]

    Abraham Sanders, Debjani Ray-Majumder, John Erickson, and Kristin Bennett. 2022. Should we tweet this? Generative response modeling for predicting reception of public health messaging on Twitter. InProceedings of the 14th ACM Web Science Conference 2022. 307–318

    2022

  113. [121]

    Deborah Schiffrin. 1987. Discourse markers. Number 5. Cambridge University Press

    1987

  114. [122]

    Hope Schroeder, Marianne Aubin Le Quéré, Casey Randazzo, David Mimno, and Sarita Schoenebeck. 2024. Large language models in qualitative research: Can we do the data justice? arXiv e-prints (2024), arXiv–2410

    2024

  115. [123]

    Kenshin Sekimoto, Yoshifumi Seki, Mitsuo Yoshida, and Kyoji Umemura. 2020. The metrics of keywords to understand the difference between Retweet and Like in each category. In 2020 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Joint Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology (...

    2020

  116. [124]

    Zakir Shah and Lu Wei. 2022. Source credibility and the information quality matter in public engagement on social networking sites during the COVID-19 crisis. Frontiers in psychology 13 (2022), 882705

    2022

  117. [125]

    Filipo Sharevski, Amy Devine, Peter Jachim, and Emma Pieroni. 2022. Meaningful Context, a Red Flag, or Both? Preferences for Enhanced Misinformation Warnings Among US Twitter Users. In Proceedings of the 2022 European Symposium on Usable Security (Karlsruhe, Germany) (EuroUSEC...

    2022

  118. [126]

    Juan Shi, Ping Hu, Kin Keung Lai, and Gang Chen. 2018. Determinants of users’ information dissemination behavior on social networking sites: An elaboration likelihood model perspective. Internet Research 28, 2 (2018), 393–418

    2018

  119. [127]

    Eric Shoemaker, Haroon Malik, Husnu Narman, and Jamil Chaudri. 2023. Explaining the Unseen: Leveraging XAI to Enhance the Trustworthiness of Black-Box Models in Performance Testing. Procedia Computer Science 224 (2023), 83–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2023.09.014 18th I...

    2023 doi

  120. [128]

    Tomer Simon, Avishay Goldberg, and Bruria Adini. 2015. Socializing in emergencies—A review of the use of social media in emergency situations. International Journal of Information Management 35, 5 (2015), 609–619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.07.001

    2015 doi

  121. [129]

    Karthik Srinivasan and Jinhang Jiang. 2023. Examining Disease Multimorbidity in U.S. Hospital Visits Before and During COVID-19 Pandemic: A Graph Analytics Approach. ACM Trans. Manage. Inf. Syst. 14, 2, Article 17 (jan 2023), 17 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3564274

    2023 doi

  122. [130]

    Stephens, Patty Callish Malone, and Christine M

    Keri K. Stephens, Patty Callish Malone, and Christine M. Bailey. 2005. Communicating with stakeholders During a Crisis: Evaluating Message Strategies. The Journal of Business Communication (1973) 42, 4 (2005), 390–419. https: //doi.org/10.1177/0021943605279057 arXiv:https://jo...

    1973 doi

  123. [131]

    Conrad Nied, Emma S

    Leo Graiden Stewart, Ahmer Arif, A. Conrad Nied, Emma S. Spiro, and Kate Starbird. 2017. Drawing the Lines of Contention: Networked Frame Contests Within #BlackLivesMatter Discourse. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 1, CSCW, Article 96 (dec 2017), 23 pages. https://doi.org/10....

    2017 doi

  124. [132]

    Bongwon Suh, Lichan Hong, Peter Pirolli, and Ed H. Chi. 2010. Want to be Retweeted? Large Scale Analytics on Factors Impacting Retweet in Twitter Network. InProceedings of the 2010 IEEE Second International Conference on Social Computing (SOCIALCOM ’10) . IEEE Computer Society...

    2010 doi

  125. [133]

    Twitter Support. 2020. PSA about what we’re doing to Verify Twitter accounts that are providing credible updates around #COVID19. Twitter. https://twitter.com/TwitterSupport/status/1241155701822476288 Retrieved January 24, 2023

    2020

  126. [134]

    2014.Signal detection theory and ROC analysis in psychology and diagnostics: Collected papers

    John A Swets. 2014.Signal detection theory and ROC analysis in psychology and diagnostics: Collected papers. Psychology Press

    2014

  127. [135]

    Nicolae Tarbă, Mihai-Lucian Voncilă, and Costin-Anton Boiangiu. 2022. On Generalizing Sarle’s Bimodality Coefficient as a Path towards a Newly Composite Bimodality Coefficient. Mathematics 10, 7 (2022). https://doi.org/10.3390/ math10071042

    2022

  128. [136]

    Xin Tong, Yixuan Li, Jiayi Li, Rongqi Bei, and Luyao Zhang. 2022. What are People Talking about in #BackLivesMatter and #StopAsianHate? Exploring and Categorizing Twitter Topics Emerged in Online Social Movements through the Latent Dirichlet Allocation Model. In Proceedings of...

    2022

  129. [137]

    Ali Unlu, Sophie Truong, Tuukka Tammi, and Anna-Leena Lohiniva. 2023. Exploring political mistrust in pandemic risk communication: mixed-method study using social media data analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research 25 30 Retweets, Receipts, and Resistance: Discourse, Sen...

    2023

  130. [138]

    Danny Valdez, Marijn Ten Thij, Krishna Bathina, Lauren A Rutter, and Johan Bollen. 2020. Social media insights into US mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: longitudinal analysis of Twitter data. Journal of medical Internet research 22, 12 (2020), e21418

    2020

  131. [139]

    Anna Valiavska and Sarah Smith-Frigerio. 2022. Politics over public health: Analysis of Twitter and Reddit posts concerning the role of politics in the public health response to COVID-19. Health Communication (2022), 1–10

    2022

  132. [140]

    van der Meer and Joost W.M

    Toni G.L.A. van der Meer and Joost W.M. Verhoeven. 2014. Emotional crisis communication. Public Relations Review 40, 3 (2014), 526–536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.03.004

    2014 doi

  133. [141]

    Janne van Doorn and Nathalie N. Koster. 2019. Emotional victims and the impact on credibility: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior 47 (2019), 74–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2019.03.007

    2019 doi

  134. [142]

    Reber Vanessa Murphree and Frederick Blevens

    Bryan H. Reber Vanessa Murphree and Frederick Blevens. 2009. Superhero, Instructor, Optimist: FEMA and the Frames of Disaster in Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Journal of Public Relations Research 21, 3 (2009), 273–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627260802640732 arXiv:https://doi...

    2009 doi

  135. [143]

    MK Vishnu, VR Vishal Rupak, S Vedhapriyaa, M Sangeetha, R Manjuladevi, and C Sagana. 2023. Recurrent gastric cancer prediction using randomized search cv optimizer. In2023 International Conference on Computer Communication and Informatics (ICCCI). IEEE, 1–5

    2023

  136. [144]

    Nishant Vishwamitra, Keyan Guo, Song Liao, Jaden Mu, Zheyuan Ma, Long Cheng, Ziming Zhao, and Hongxin Hu

  137. [145]

    Alyvia Walters, Tawfiq Ammari, Kiran Garimella, and Shagun Jhaver. 0. Online knowledge production in polarized political memes: The case of critical race theory. New Media & Society 0, 0 (0), 14614448241252591. https://doi.org/10. 1177/14614448241252591 arXiv:https://doi.org/1...

    doi

  138. [146]

    Sijian Wang, Bin Nan, Saharon Rosset, and Ji Zhu. 2011. Random lasso. The annals of applied statistics 5, 1 (2011), 468

    2011

  139. [147]

    Yuping Wang, Chen Ling, and Gianluca Stringhini. 2023. Understanding the Use of Images to Spread COVID- 19 Misinformation on Twitter. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 7, CSCW1, Article 108 (apr 2023), 32 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3579542

    2023 doi

  140. [148]

    Yu Wang, Jiebo Luo, Richard Niemi, Yuncheng Li, and Tianran Hu. 2016. Catching fire via" likes": Inferring topic preferences of trump followers on twitter. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Vol. 10. 719–722

    2016

  141. [149]

    Richard D Waters and Jia Y Jamal. 2011. Tweet, tweet, tweet: A content analysis of nonprofit organizations’ Twitter updates. Public relations review 37, 3 (2011), 321–324

    2011

  142. [150]

    Chi, Quoc V

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Brian Ichter, Fei Xia, Ed H. Chi, Quoc V. Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Neural Information Processi...

    2022

  143. [151]

    Xingjiao Wu, Luwei Xiao, Yixuan Sun, Junhang Zhang, Tianlong Ma, and Liang He. 2022. A survey of human-in-the- loop for machine learning. Future Generation Computer Systems 135 (2022), 364–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future. 2022.05.014

    2022 doi

  144. [152]

    Moran Yarchi, Christian Baden, and Neta Kligler-Vilenchik. 2021. Political polarization on the digital sphere: A cross-platform, over-time analysis of interactional, positional, and affective polarization on social media. Political Communication 38, 1-2 (2021), 98–139

    2021

  145. [153]

    Chunxiao Yin and Xiaofei Zhang. 2020. Incorporating message format into user evaluation of microblog information credibility: A nonlinear perspective. Information Processing & Management 57, 6 (2020), 102345

    2020

  146. [154]

    Tran, Christina Smith, Sukrit Venkatagiri, Gary Hsieh, and Kate Starbird

    Himanshu Zade, Spencer Williams, Theresa T. Tran, Christina Smith, Sukrit Venkatagiri, Gary Hsieh, and Kate Starbird. 2024. To Reply or to Quote: Comparing Conversational Framing Strategies on Twitter. ACM J. Comput. Sustain. Soc. 2, 1, Article 9 (Jan. 2024), 27 pages. https:/...

    2024 doi

  147. [155]

    Nagwan R Zahry, Michael McCluskey, and Jiying Ling. 2023. Risk governance during the COVID-19 pandemic: A quantitative content analysis of governors’ narratives on twitter. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 31, 1 (2023), 77–91

    2023

  148. [156]

    Michele Zappavigna and James R Martin. 2018. # Communing affiliation: Social tagging as a resource for aligning around values in social media. Discourse, context & media 22 (2018), 4–12

    2018

  149. [157]

    Cheng Zhang, Chao Fan, Wenlin Yao, Xia Hu, and Ali Mostafavi. 2019. Social media for intelligent public information and warning in disasters: An interdisciplinary review. International Journal of Information Management 49 (2019), 190–207. 31 CSCW’26, , Ammari et al

    2019

  150. [158]

    Zheng Zhang, Jie Gao, Ranjodh Singh Dhaliwal, and Toby Jia-Jun Li. 2023. VISAR: A Human-AI Argumentative Writing Assistant with Visual Programming and Rapid Draft Prototyping. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (San Franci...

    2023

  151. [159]

    Wanqing Zhao, Yuta Nakashima, Haiyuan Chen, and Noboru Babaguchi. 2023. Enhancing Fake News Detection in Social Media via Label Propagation on Cross-modal Tweet Graph. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia (Ottawa ON, Canada) (MM ’23). Associati...

    2023

  152. [160]

    Cheng Zhou, Kai Li, and Yanhong Lu. 2021. Linguistic characteristics and the dissemination of misinformation in social media: The moderating effect of information richness. Information Processing & Management 58, 6 (2021), 102679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2021.102679

    2021

  153. [161]

    Cheng Zhou, Haoxin Xiu, Yuqiu Wang, and Xinyao Yu. 2021. Characterizing the dissemination of misinformation on social media in health emergencies: An empirical study based on COVID-19. Information Processing & Management 58, 4 (2021), 102554

    2021

  154. [162]

    Kaitlyn Zhou, Tom Wilson, Kate Starbird, and Emma S. Spiro. 2023. Spotlight Tweets: A Lens for Exploring Attention Dynamics within Online Sensemaking During Crisis Events. Trans. Soc. Comput. 6, 1–2, Article 2 (June 2023), 33 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3577213

    2023 doi

  155. [163]

    Radim Řehůřek. n.d.. CoherenceModel – Gensim. https://radimrehurek.com/gensim/models/coherencemodel.html Accessed: 2025-03-11. Received 24 March 2025; revised XX XX XXXX; accepted XX XX XXXX 32

    2025

  156. [2021]

    Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research 4, 1 (2021), 1–27

    Being first, being right, and being credible since 2002: A systematic review of Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication (CERC) research. Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research 4, 1 (2021), 1–27

    2021

  157. [2024]

    In Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (Kusadasi, Turkiye) (ASONAM ’23)

    Understanding and Analyzing COVID-19-related Online Hate Propagation Through Hateful Memes Shared on Twitter. In Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (Kusadasi, Turkiye) (ASONAM ’23). Association for Compu...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.