This study examines a collection of artifacts passed on from some closed Facebook groups of anti-vaxxers. The study conducted a thematic analysis to determine whether or not the group is a community of practice, evaluate and categorize the types of information shared in these groups, and determine the sources of over 1,100 links across two compiled documents to address a series of questions related to claims of ex-vaxxers when compared to anti-vaxxers and the types of data commonly referenced. Findings indicated that ex-vaxxers and anti-vaxxers have separate and distinct claims, abstracts are the most commonly shared scholarly document, and select information is most often taken out of context. This data set can be analyzed for valence and language use in future studies. The purpose of this study is to evaluate information shared in among anti-and ex-vaxxer parents. This study does not seek to validate a specific position or point of view, nor does the researcher want to explore or determine correctness of beliefs.
Vaccine hesitancy and speculation are persistent throughout the history of health care. This study employs situated awareness to evaluated the impact information has on decision-making. A set of frequently circulated documents called Vaccine Guide presents information from vaccine inserts, court cases, and other documents. This Guide is widely circulated in anti-vaccine communities on Facebook. A survey was conducted among university college students in order to evaluate claims about vaccine schedules and examine highlighted passages in this collection of documents and to determine how these passages impact information interpretation and personal health literacy from a situated awareness theory perspective.
This study introduces a new instrument for leadership evaluation in online forums and other online communities which was developed using a grounded approach. Questions that emerged from the literature were then evaluated to create hypotheses that guided the development of an instrument for moderator evaluation. The Moderator Evaluation Contingency Scale (MECS) is modified from Fiedler's contingency model to determine if a moderator is more task-or relationship-oriented in his or her approach to moderation and interactions with other members of a community. The MECS was developed and tested on Reddit in 2013-2014 using random sampling for Forum selection, moderator selection, and interactions with users. A content analysis using the MECS to evaluate posts was found to be a viable measure of a moderator's ability to perform tasks like removing content as well as his or her ability to interact with users. Bots were analyzed using the MECS as well to determine bias. Next steps include making the instrument available for use by social media and niche community sites, administrators, and other moderators.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.