The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Twitter earthquake detection: earthquake monitoring in a social world
Open accessAbstract
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is investigating how the social networking site Twitter, a popular service for sending and receiving short, public text messages, can augment USGS earthquake response products and the delivery of hazard information. Rapid detection and qualitative assessment of shaking events are possible because people begin sending public Twitter messages (tweets) with in tens of seconds after feeling shaking. Here we present and evaluate an earthquake detection procedure that relies solely on Twitter data. A tweet-frequency time series constructed from tweets containing the word “earthquake” clearly shows large peaks correlated with the origin times of widely felt events. To identify possible earthquakes, we use a short-term-average, long-term-average algorithm. When tuned to a moderate sensitivity, the detector finds 48 globally-distributed earthquakes with only two false triggers in five months of data. The number of detections is small compared to the 5,175 earthquakes in the USGS global earthquake catalog for the same five-month time period, and no accurate location or magnitude can be assigned based on tweet data alone. However, Twitter earthquake detections are not without merit. The detections are generally caused by widely felt events that are of more immediate interest than those with no human impact. The detections are also fast; about 75% occur within two minutes of the origin time. This is considerably faster than seismographic detections in poorly instrumented regions of the world. The tweets triggering the detections also provided very short first-impression narratives from people who experienced the shaking.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Processing Social Media Messages in Mass Emergency: A Survey
Imran, M., Castillo, C., Diaz, F., & Vieweg, S. (2015) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/2771588 · Cited by 804
Detection and Resolution of Rumours in Social Media: A Survey
Zubiaga, A., Aker, A., Bontcheva, K., Liakata, M., & Procter, R. (2019) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3161603 · Cited by 862
Tools and methods in participatory modeling: Selecting the right tool for the job
Voinov, A., Jenni, K., Gray, S., Kolagani, N., Glynn, P. D., Bommel, P., Prell, C., Zellner, M., Paolisso, M., Jordan, R., et al. (2018) · Environmental Modelling & Software · doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.08.028 · Cited by 428
A topology of Twitter research: disciplines, methods, and ethics
Zimmer, M., & Proferes, N. J. (2014) · Aslib Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1108/ajim-09-2013-0083 · Cited by 257
Crawford, K., & Finn, M. (2015) · GeoJournal · doi:10.1007/s10708-014-9597-z · Cited by 191
Metadata
- Authors
- Earle, P. S., Bowden, D. C., & Guy, M.
- Venue
- Annals of Geophysics
- Published
- 2012-01-14
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 6
- ISSN
- 0365-2556 (ISSN-L)
- 2037-416X
- 1593-5213
- OpenAlex
- W1731771962
- Cited by
- 418
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 31.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Twitter earthquake detection: earthquake monitoring in a social world. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.4401/ag-5364
- The paper
- Earle, P. S., Bowden, D. C., & Guy, M. (2012). Twitter earthquake detection: earthquake monitoring in a social world. Annals of Geophysics. https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-5364
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.