MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036616070 · doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2014.07.053

Effects of Disaster Characteristics on Twitter Event Signature

2014· article· en· W2036616070 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProcedia Engineering · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Relations and Crisis Communication
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForeknowledgeEvent (particle physics)Content (measure theory)Social mediaSignature (topology)Scale (ratio)Computer scienceData scienceGeographyWorld Wide WebMathematicsCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Twitter has emerged as a platform that is heavily used during disasters. Therefore, as an event unfolds, it generates varying levels of online engagement from victims as well as onlookers (both physical and virtual). Because methods for mining disaster-related content at scale must contend with the problem of filtering out vast numbers of unrelated posts, any prior knowledge about the characteristics of disaster-related content in the live Twitter feed may help improve the recovery of relevant posts. In this study, we consider the relative abundance of a disasters Twitter content over time (both relative to total event-related content and relative to the overall volume of content generated on Twitter). We refer to this time-varying abundance as the events signature. In an analysis of three different disasters, we find that event signatures are qualitatively different. These differences can be explained in terms of several characteristics of disasters: foreknowledge, duration, severity, and news media engagement.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.655
Threshold uncertainty score0.196

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it