Discourse on Vaccination on Russian Social Media: Topics and Controversy

K. Platonov, K. Svetlov, Viktoriia Saifulina
{"title":"Discourse on Vaccination on Russian Social Media: Topics and Controversy","authors":"K. Platonov, K. Svetlov, Viktoriia Saifulina","doi":"10.23919/FRUCT56874.2022.9953888","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Public discussion on vaccination in Russia is vigorous and controversial, especially in the case of COVID-19. In conditions of extensively spreading myths, false information and rhetoric contradicting argumentation of scientific community social media became a place where opinions on vaccination collide. Participatory culture of commenting still remains to be a peculiar form of public health activism accessible to almost everyone. In this study, the data retrieved from the most popular Russian social networking platform Vkontakte was used. The raw dataset included 467888 news posts (published during 2021) from salient online communities and 538202 comments. Topic mining and modeling methods including PLSA and LDA were used to classify vaccination-related news posts in 6 groups, which differed in terms of language style, main focuses and discussed issues. The most engaging topic was “Vaccination on the ground” mainly because in contained an abundance of “obtrusive” issues. It was shown that the degree of user engagement did not significantly depend on salience of topic. In sum, it was revealed that 6.2% of comments was against vaccination, while, one and a half times less, 4.3% was in favor. Positive comments outweighed the negative ones only for topic “Russian vaccines in the World”.","PeriodicalId":274664,"journal":{"name":"2022 32nd Conference of Open Innovations Association (FRUCT)","volume":"103 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2022 32nd Conference of Open Innovations Association (FRUCT)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23919/FRUCT56874.2022.9953888","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Public discussion on vaccination in Russia is vigorous and controversial, especially in the case of COVID-19. In conditions of extensively spreading myths, false information and rhetoric contradicting argumentation of scientific community social media became a place where opinions on vaccination collide. Participatory culture of commenting still remains to be a peculiar form of public health activism accessible to almost everyone. In this study, the data retrieved from the most popular Russian social networking platform Vkontakte was used. The raw dataset included 467888 news posts (published during 2021) from salient online communities and 538202 comments. Topic mining and modeling methods including PLSA and LDA were used to classify vaccination-related news posts in 6 groups, which differed in terms of language style, main focuses and discussed issues. The most engaging topic was “Vaccination on the ground” mainly because in contained an abundance of “obtrusive” issues. It was shown that the degree of user engagement did not significantly depend on salience of topic. In sum, it was revealed that 6.2% of comments was against vaccination, while, one and a half times less, 4.3% was in favor. Positive comments outweighed the negative ones only for topic “Russian vaccines in the World”.
俄罗斯社交媒体上关于疫苗接种的论述:话题和争议
在俄罗斯,公众对疫苗接种的讨论是激烈而有争议的,特别是在COVID-19的情况下。在谣言广泛传播的情况下,与科学界的论点相矛盾的虚假信息和言论,社交媒体成为了疫苗接种意见冲突的地方。参与式评论文化仍然是一种特殊的公共卫生行动形式,几乎每个人都可以接触到。在这项研究中,数据是从俄罗斯最流行的社交网络平台Vkontakte检索的。原始数据集包括来自重要在线社区的467888篇新闻帖子(在2021年发布)和538202条评论。采用PLSA和LDA等主题挖掘和建模方法,对语言风格、主要关注点和讨论问题不同的6组疫苗相关新闻帖子进行分类。最吸引人的话题是“实地接种疫苗”,主要是因为其中包含大量“突兀”问题。结果表明,用户参与程度并不显著依赖于主题的显著性。总的来说,有6.2%的评论是反对接种疫苗的,而赞成接种疫苗的评论则少了1.5倍,只有4.3%。只有在“世界上的俄罗斯疫苗”这一主题上,正面评论多于负面评论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信