Cited by 239Public Relations and Crisis CommunicationDisaster Management and ResilienceMisinformation and Its Impacts

Tools and methods for capturing twitter data during natural disasters

Open access
Bruns, Axel, Liang, Yuxian Eugene·2012·First Monday

Abstract

During the course of several natural disasters in recent years, Twitter has been found to play an important role as an additional medium for many-to-many crisis communication. Emergency services are successfully using Twitter to inform the public about current developments, and are increasingly also attempting to source first-hand situational information from Twitter feeds (such as relevant hashtags). The further study of the uses of Twitter during natural disasters relies on the development of flexible and reliable research infrastructure for tracking and analysing Twitter feeds at scale and in close to real time, however. This article outlines two approaches to the development of such infrastructure: one which builds on the readily available open source platform yourTwapperkeeper to provide a low-cost, simple, and basic solution; and one which establishes a more powerful and flexible framework by drawing on highly scaleable, state-of-the-art technology.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5210/fm.v17i4.3937

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The availability of tools may enable the participation of those lacking the resources to create their own.

    “Beyond aiding reproducibility and future comparisons, the availability of tools may also enable the participation of those lacking the resources to create their own (e.g., many researchers outside of computer science) (boyd and Crawford, 2012; Bruns and Liang, 2012).”

    From Social Data: Biases, Methodological Pitfalls, and Ethical Boundaries (2019) · cites this paper as Bruns and Liang, 2012

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bruns, A., & Liang, Y. E.
Affiliations
  • Queensland University of Technology (AU)
  • National Chengchi University (TW)
Venue
First Monday
Published
2012-03-26
ISSN
  • 1396-0458 (ISSN-L)
  • 1396-0466
OpenAlex
W2089298720
Cited by
239
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 7
FWCI
81.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • First Monday (publishedVersion)
  • QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Public Relations and Crisis Communication
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Disaster Management and Resilience
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
Keywords
Twitter, natural disasters, crisis communication, social media data collection, real-time analytics, hashtags, emergency services, open source software

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