MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408126524 · doi:10.2196/67515

Crisis Communication About the Maui Wildfires on TikTok: Content Analysis of Engagement With Maui Wildfire–Related Posts Over 1 Year

2025· article· en· W4408126524 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jim P. Stimpson, Aditi Srivastava, Ketan Tamirisa, Joseph Keawe‘aimoku Kaholokula, Alexander N. Ortega

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Relations and Crisis Communication
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities
KeywordsSocial mediaThematic analysisCrisis communicationContent analysisGeographyPublic relationsPsychologyPolitical scienceSociologyQualitative researchSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The August 2023 wildfire in the town of Lāhainā on the island of Maui in Hawai'i caused catastrophic damage, affecting thousands of residents, and killing 102 people. Social media platforms, particularly TikTok, have become essential tools for crisis communication during disasters, providing real-time crisis updates, mobilizing relief efforts, and addressing misinformation. Understanding how disaster-related content is disseminated and engaged with on these platforms can inform strategies for improving emergency communication and community resilience. Objective: Guided by Social-Mediated Crisis Communication theory, this study examined TikTok posts related to the Maui wildfires to assess content themes, public engagement, and the effectiveness of social media in disseminating disaster-related information. Methods: TikTok posts related to the Maui wildfires were collected from August 8, 2023, to August 9, 2024. Using TikTok's search functionality, we identified and reviewed public posts that contained relevant hashtags. Posts were categorized into 3 periods: during the disaster (August 8 to August 31, 2023), the immediate aftermath (September 1 to December 31, 2023), and the long-term recovery (January 1 to August 9, 2024). Two researchers independently coded the posts into thematic categories, achieving an interrater reliability of 87%. Engagement metrics (likes and shares) were analyzed to assess public interaction with different themes. Multivariable linear regression models were used to examine the associations between log-transformed likes and shares and independent variables, including time intervals, video length, the inclusion of music or effects, content themes, and hashtags. Results: A total of 275 TikTok posts were included in the analysis. Most posts (132/275, 48%) occurred in the immediate aftermath, while 76 (27.6%) were posted during the long-term recovery phase, and 24.4% (n=67) were posted during the event. Posts during the event garnered the highest average number of likes (mean 75,092, SD 252,759) and shares (mean 10,928, SD 55,308). Posts focused on "Impact & Damage" accounted for the highest engagement, representing 36.8% (4,090,574/11,104,031) of total likes and 61.2% (724,848/1,184,049) of total shares. "Tourism Impact" (2,172,991/11,104,031, 19.6% of likes; 81,372/1,184,049, 6.9% of shares) and "Relief Efforts" (509,855/11,104,031, 4.6% of likes; 52,587/1,184,049, 4.4% of shares) were also prominent themes. Regression analyses revealed that videos with "Misinformation & Fake News" themes had the highest engagement per post, with a 4.55 coefficient for log-shares (95% CI 2.44-6.65), while videos about "Tourism Impact" and "Relief Efforts" also showed strong engagement (coefficients for log-likes: 2.55 and 1.76, respectively). Conclusions: TikTok is an influential tool for disaster communication, amplifying both critical disaster updates and misinformation, highlighting the need for strategic content moderation and evidence-based messaging to enhance the platform's role in crisis response. Public health officials, emergency responders, and policy makers can leverage TikTok's engagement patterns to optimize communication strategies, improve real-time risk messaging, and support long-term community resilience.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.773
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.352 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations11
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicPublic Relations and Crisis CommunicationFrench-language works237,207