Analysis of the Regionality of the Number of Tweets Related to the 2011 Fukushima Nuclear Power Station Disaster: Content Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Great East Japan Earthquake on March 11, 2011, triggered a huge tsunami, causing the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Radioactive substances were carried in all directions, along with the risks of radioactive contamination. Mass media companies, such as television stations and news websites, extensively reported on radiological information related to the disaster. Upon digesting the available radiological information, many citizens turned to social media, such as Twitter and Facebook, to express their opinions and feelings. Thus, the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster also changed the social media landscape in Japan. However, few studies have explored how the people in Japan who received information on radiation propagated the information. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to reveal how the number of tweets by citizens containing radiological information changed regionally on Twitter. METHODS: The research used about 19 million tweets that included the terms "radiation," "radioactivity," and "radioactive substance" posted for 1 year after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Nearly 45,000 tweets were extracted based on their inclusion of geographic information (latitude and longitude). The number of monthly tweets in 4 districts (Fukushima Prefecture, prefectures around Fukushima Prefecture, within the Tokyo Electric Power Company area, and others) were analyzed. RESULTS: The number of tweets containing the keywords per 100,000 people at the time of the casualty outbreak was 7.05 per month in Fukushima Prefecture, 2.07 per month in prefectures around Fukushima Prefecture, 5.23 per month in the area within Tokyo Electric Power Company, and 1.35 per month in others. The number of tweets per 100,000 people more than doubled in Fukushima Prefecture 2 months after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, whereas the number decreased to around 0.7~0.8 tweets in other districts. CONCLUSIONS: The number of tweets per 100,000 people became half of that on March 2011 3 or 4 months after the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant disaster in 3 districts except district 1 (Fukushima Prefecture); the number became a half in Fukushima Prefecture half a year later.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".