Communicating on social media during a #FestivalEmergency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of the study was to explore multidirectional flows of information over the course of an emergency. The following research questions were designed to guide this study: How does social media communication unfold over the course of an emergency at a cultural event? How does the nature and purpose of social media communication between all SM users change once an emergency occurs that affects event operations? How does the sentiment of social media communication change once an emergency occurs that affects event operations? Design/methodology/approach This study explored how social media was used to communicate about on-site emergencies at community cultural events. Three events were studied before, during and after an on-site emergency that disrupted the event. The Twitter and Facebook posts referencing emergencies that took place at Shambhala, Detonate and Zombicon were explored, and the nature and purpose of the posts revealed how online communication changed throughout the emergencies. The Social Mediated Crisis Communication Model guided this research and findings contribute to the model's ongoing development by incorporating additional theories and models. Findings The research demonstrates that social media communication shifts during an emergency and how communication moves through a network changes. Once an emergency is underway, communication increases and who is talking with whom changes. The nature and purpose of the social media conversation also evolves over the course of an emergency. Research limitations/implications This study examined the social media communication during three on-site emergencies at three different cultural events. The findings contribute to the understanding of the Social Media Crisis Communication Model. Specifically, the research confirms the various actors who engage online but also shows that two-way communication is not common. As this study only examined three events experiencing three different emergencies, we have a limited understanding of how the type of emergencies affects social media communication. Practical implications The findings show the need for pre-crisis work by event organizers. It is necessary for the events to build trust with their online communities to ensure that when an emergency occurs the event will be seen as a trusted source. Also, staff training is needed to ensure people are prepared to handle the complexities of communicating online during an emergency. Issues like misinformation, influencers and the rapid pace of social media communication create a challenging environment for staff who are unprepared. Originality/value Emergencies can threaten the survival of event organizations and put the health and wellness of attendees, staff and other stakeholders at risk. The study of crisis communication in special event contexts has received little theoretical attention and yet it is an important area of event management practice. Social media is an essential part of communication strategies and should be integrated into emergency planning to best reach people when an emergency threatens the safety of those involved with the event. The Social Media Crisis Communication Model offers some insight, but understanding its relevance is necessary if it is to be integrated into event emergency management.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".