Facebook 上支持和反对疫苗接种评论中的分歧程度和信息来源的可靠性

Dorota Kotwica, Marta Albelda Marco
{"title":"Facebook 上支持和反对疫苗接种评论中的分歧程度和信息来源的可靠性","authors":"Dorota Kotwica, Marta Albelda Marco","doi":"10.1075/jlac.00106.kot","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n During the COVID-19 vaccination campaign, the Spanish Ministry of Health shared informative posts on platforms\n like Facebook, sparking heated debates. This paper utilizes a custom corpus of Facebook comments with evidential elements to\n explore the disagreement and confrontation in online comments from pro- and anti-vaccine advocates. The study also analyses the\n types of evidence employed by posters to support their positions, revealing potential hierarchies of information sources in terms\n of reliability and validity.\n Findings indicate that anti-vaccine advocates (i) engage in stronger disagreement than vaccine supporters; (ii)\n use disqualification and hostile speech acts slightly more; and (iii) employ more impolite strategies. Moreover, the study shows\n differences between these two user groups with regard to the sources of the information they chose to use: anti-vaccine posters\n employ a higher percentage of more objective types of evidence, while pro-vaccine posters resort to evidence based on more\n subjective, and personal sources.","PeriodicalId":324436,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict","volume":" 22","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Degrees of disagreement and reliability of information sources in pro- and anti-vaccination comments on\\n Facebook\",\"authors\":\"Dorota Kotwica, Marta Albelda Marco\",\"doi\":\"10.1075/jlac.00106.kot\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n During the COVID-19 vaccination campaign, the Spanish Ministry of Health shared informative posts on platforms\\n like Facebook, sparking heated debates. This paper utilizes a custom corpus of Facebook comments with evidential elements to\\n explore the disagreement and confrontation in online comments from pro- and anti-vaccine advocates. The study also analyses the\\n types of evidence employed by posters to support their positions, revealing potential hierarchies of information sources in terms\\n of reliability and validity.\\n Findings indicate that anti-vaccine advocates (i) engage in stronger disagreement than vaccine supporters; (ii)\\n use disqualification and hostile speech acts slightly more; and (iii) employ more impolite strategies. Moreover, the study shows\\n differences between these two user groups with regard to the sources of the information they chose to use: anti-vaccine posters\\n employ a higher percentage of more objective types of evidence, while pro-vaccine posters resort to evidence based on more\\n subjective, and personal sources.\",\"PeriodicalId\":324436,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict\",\"volume\":\" 22\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00106.kot\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00106.kot","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在 COVID-19 疫苗接种活动期间,西班牙卫生部在 Facebook 等平台上分享了信息帖子,引发了激烈的争论。本文利用定制的包含证据元素的 Facebook 评论语料库,探讨了支持和反对疫苗接种者在线评论中的分歧和对抗。研究还分析了发帖者为支持其立场而使用的证据类型,揭示了信息来源在可靠性和有效性方面的潜在等级。研究结果表明,反疫苗拥护者(i) 比疫苗支持者有更强烈的不同意见;(ii) 使用取消资格和敌意言论的行为略多;(iii) 使用更多无礼策略。此外,研究还显示了这两个用户群体在选择使用的信息来源方面的差异:反疫苗的发帖者使用更多客观类型的证据,而支持疫苗的发帖者则使用基于更多主观和个人来源的证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Degrees of disagreement and reliability of information sources in pro- and anti-vaccination comments on Facebook
During the COVID-19 vaccination campaign, the Spanish Ministry of Health shared informative posts on platforms like Facebook, sparking heated debates. This paper utilizes a custom corpus of Facebook comments with evidential elements to explore the disagreement and confrontation in online comments from pro- and anti-vaccine advocates. The study also analyses the types of evidence employed by posters to support their positions, revealing potential hierarchies of information sources in terms of reliability and validity. Findings indicate that anti-vaccine advocates (i) engage in stronger disagreement than vaccine supporters; (ii) use disqualification and hostile speech acts slightly more; and (iii) employ more impolite strategies. Moreover, the study shows differences between these two user groups with regard to the sources of the information they chose to use: anti-vaccine posters employ a higher percentage of more objective types of evidence, while pro-vaccine posters resort to evidence based on more subjective, and personal sources.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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