What Googling Trends Tell Us about Public Interest in Earthquakes
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Research Article| January 24, 2018 What Googling Trends Tell Us about Public Interest in Earthquakes Yen Joe Tan; Yen Joe Tan aLamont‐Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, 61 Route 9 West, P.O. Box 1000, Palisades, New York 10964 U.S.A., yjt@ldeo.columbia.edu Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Rijan Maharjan Rijan Maharjan bDepartment of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science, Yale University, 9 Hillhouse Avenue, M11, New Haven, Connecticut 06520 U.S.A., rijan.maharjan@yale.edu Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Seismological Research Letters (2018) 89 (2A): 653–657. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220170116 Article history first online: 24 Jan 2018 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Search Site Citation Yen Joe Tan, Rijan Maharjan; What Googling Trends Tell Us about Public Interest in Earthquakes. Seismological Research Letters 2018;; 89 (2A): 653–657. doi: https://doi.org/10.1785/0220170116 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Refmanager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentBy SocietySeismological Research Letters Search Advanced Search ABSTRACT Previous studies have shown that immediately after large earthquakes, there is a period of increased public interest. This represents a window of opportunity for science communication and disaster‐relief fundraising efforts to reach more people. However, how public interest varies for different earthquakes has not been quantified systematically on a global scale. We analyze how global search interest for the term “earthquake” on Google varies following destructive earthquakes from 2004 to 2016. We find that there is a spike in search interest after destructive earthquakes followed by an exponential temporal decay. The duration and time constant of increased search interest correlate with death toll and damages but did not correlate with earthquake magnitude, estimated population exposed to very strong shaking, and number of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) “Did You Feel It?” (DYFI) responses. Furthermore, we obtain similar time constants of increased search interest when analyzing just the U.S. search interest following destructive earthquakes outside of U.S.A., Canada, and Mexico. This suggests that a significant portion of the increased search interest comes from people who did not feel the shaking. Our observations are consistent with more destructive earthquakes receiving more media coverage which leads to a longer duration of elevated public interest in earthquakes. Of the 73 earthquakes that resulted in an increase in global search interest that fit our selection criteria, only 11 (15%) resulted in an elevated search interest of more than a week. Therefore, to take advantage of these short durations of increased public interest, science communication and disaster‐relief fundraising efforts have to act promptly following devastating earthquakes. You do not have access to this content, please speak to your institutional administrator if you feel you should have access.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle