MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3108885890

An Empirical Text Mining Analysis of Fort McMurray Wildfire Disaster Twitter Communication using Topic Model

2016· article· en· W3108885890 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Prabhakar Kaila, RAJESH RAJESH

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicComputational and Text Analysis Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLatent Dirichlet allocationTopic modelCrisis communicationEmergency managementComputer scienceComputer securityGeographyNatural language processingPolitical sciencePublic relations
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Twitter has emerged as one of the most preferred disaster communication medium particularly in those countries where it has significant presence. Fort McMurray, Canada was engulfed in a wildfire in May 2016 that burnt down major part of the city and the disaster communication on twitter related to this was studied. Tweets related were downloaded and analyzed using frequency analysis, correlation analysis and Topic Model Latent Dirichlet Allocation (Gibbs Method). The LDA model automatically discovered the most relevant topics that are highly correlated probabilistically to the effective and reliable disaster communication. The disaster communication pattern also followed the various disaster stages as initially most of the information was related to intensity, evacuation and relief efforts followed by the updates and status of the wildfire and firefighting efforts and finally related to phased returning of residents back to city.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.353 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicComputational and Text Analysis MethodsFrench-language works237,207