IEEE R10-HTC2013
The Possibility of Social Media Analysis for
Disaster Management
Takeshi Sakaki
Hottolink Inc. The University of Tokyo
The University of Tokyo
Tokyo, Japan Email: tori@sys.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp
Email: t.sakaki@hottolink.co.jp
Yutaka Matsuo
The University of Tokyo
Tokyo, Japan
Email: matsuo@weblab.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp Email: kosuke.shinoda@riken.jp
Satoshi Kurihara
Osaka University
Osaka, Japan
Email: kurihara@ist.osaka-u.ac.jp
Abstract—Collecting, sharing, and delivering information in
disaster situations is crucially important. Mass media such as TV,
radio, and newspapers have played important roles in information
distribution in past disasters and crises. Recently, social media
have received much attention for their use as an information
sharing tool. Especially, it is said that people used Twitter to
collect and share information in the aftermath of the Great
East Japan Earthquake. In academic fields, some researchers
have started to propose some methods and systems for disaster
management by analyzing social media data. Other people doubt
whether social media will actually function effectively for disaster
management because of uncertainty and inaccuracies related
to rumors and misunderstanding. In this paper, we overview
current studies of social media analysis for disaster management
and explain some studies in detail to show their possibility and
availability. We specifically examine situational awareness, user
behavior analysis and information propagation analysis, which
are three approaches to social media analysis, to clarify what
social media analysis can and cannot do. Additionally, we propose
some concepts for social media analysis and show how those
concepts help to collaborate with us, researchers in social media
analysis fields and other research fields.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Social media have become increasingly popular in recent
years. According to this tendency, social media are used
effectively in various fields. In the previous US presidential
election, President Obama and his supporters used social media
to measure the effects of his speeches, television appearances,
and other actions for the election campaign. Many services
and studies provide tools to observe reputations of products
and brands from social media.
Social media attract attention for their information-sharing
capabilities, especially Twitter, which is a hugely popular
social medium used during disasters[1], [2], [3]. Because
governments, mass media, and many other organizations have
Sendai, Japan, August 26-29, 2013
Fujio Toriumi Koki Uchiyama
Hottolink Inc.
Tokyo, Japan Tokyo, Japan
Email: uchi@hottolink.co.jp
Kosuke Shinoda Kazuhiro Kazama
RIKEN Wakayama University
Saitama, Japan Wakayama, Japan
Email: kazama@ingrid.org
Itsuki Noda
AIST
Tsukuba, Japan
Email: i.noda@aist.go.jp
high expectations for social media as information sharing tools,
many organizations have opened official social media accounts.
Some studies have analyzed social media data for disas-
ter management. These studies are divided into two groups
according to their purposes. The first purpose is situational
awareness, which means being alert to what is happening in the
real world during disasters by collecting various information
such as damage in disaster areas, evacuation routes, safety
confirmation, and missing resources. Collecting information
of such kinds is helpful to plan disaster-relief activity and
victim-support activity. The second purpose is information
sharing, which means to show how people behave and what
kinds of information people share in a social media world
during disasters by analyzing activities that are undertaken
in social media, such as posting, communicating, and sharing
contents. They perform user behavior analysis and information
propagation analysis. Analyzing information of such kinds is
helpful to propose more effective ways of using social media
as information sharing tools and to develop some disaster
management systems.
As described in this paper, we overview current studies
of social media analysis for disaster management, and explain
details of some studies as examples to demonstrate the pos-
sibility and availability of social media analysis for disaster
management.
In section 2, we introduce many studies of situational
awareness dealing with social media data of disasters. In
section 3, we present examples of studies of situational aware-
ness applying a new concept: social sensors. In section 4,
we introduce many studies of user behavior analysis and
information propagation analysis dealing with social media
data of disasters. In section 5, we present results of user
behavior analysis using the dataset of the Great East Japan
238
 IEEE R10-HTC2013 Sendai, Japan, August 26-29, 2013

Earthquake as an example. In section 6, we describe results of

information propagation analysis using the same dataset as an
example. In section 7, we conclude the studies introduced in
this paper and describe the future of social media mining for
disaster management.

II. R ESEARCH OF S ITUATIONAL AWARENESS

Many studies have been undertaken to observe and extract
information of real-world phenomena from social media. In
this section, we introduce studies related to disasters out of
those studies.
Some researchers have proposed methods and systems to
detect disasters of various kinds and to notify users in real time.
Sakaki et al. proposed methods to detect earthquake occurrence
and to estimate earthquake centers in Japan using Bayes
filtering[4]. The Australian Government Crisis Coordination
Centre developed a system to create situational awareness
among those affected by an emergency incident by collecting
tweets from Australia. The system is called the Emergency
Situation Awareness – Automated Web Text Mining (ESA-
AWTM) system[5]. The University of Colorado at Boulder
Project EPIC6 proposed methodologies to improve computer
mediated communication during a crisis1 . Kumar et al. created
Tweet Tracker to help Humanitarian Aid and Disaster Relief
(HADR) organizations by tracking, analyzing, and monitoring
tweets[6]. Ushahidi is an application for various event map
applications including crisis maps for disasters[7]. The Joint
Research Centre of the European Commission (JOC) adopted
Twitter data as a valuable data source for their disaster detec-
tion system, called the Global Disaster Alert and Coordination
System (GDACS) [8]. The system succeeded in detecting
disasters occurring in various parts of the world: the strong
earthquake in Christchurch, Japan, Oklahoma 2011, in the
Philippines, Japan, Haiti and Indonesia in 2012.
Some studies have been conducted to provide detailed
information about crises for situational awareness. Vieweg
et al. extracted tweets describing the current situation by
application of an information extraction method to a dataset
of Red River Floods and Oklahoma grass fires and created an
outline that identifies features to inform systems that enhance
situational awareness[3]. Verma et al. built a classifier to detect
messages that might contribute to situational awareness, using
a combination of hand-annotated and automatically extracted
linguistic features[9]. Murakami et al. prepared a syntactic
pattern dictionary to identify goods that were in short supply
in the aftermath of the Great East Japan Earthquake 2011[10].
Ishino et al. proposed methods for the automatic extraction
of transportation information and traffic problems from tweets
written in Japanese and posted during the Great East Japan
Earthquake[11].
Many studies have sought to achieve situational awareness
in times of disaster from social media. Some have accom-
plished certain results obtained using various methods. It
might be inferred from this fact that social media offer great
possibilities of situational awareness for disaster management.
However, those methods are wide-ranging. They are not well
organized.
1 http://epic.cs.colorado.edu/
Fig. 1. Correspondence between event detection from Twitter and object
detection in a ubiquitous environment.
Fig. 2. Definition of a physical sensor.
III. S ITUATION AWARENESS BY S OCIAL S ENSORS
We propose a concept, social sensors, to organize studies
of situational awareness[4].
A. Definition of social sensors
Figure 1 presents an illustration of the correspondence
between sensory data detection and situational awareness by
social media analysis. The motivations are the same for both
cases: to detect a target event. Observation by sensors corre-
sponds to an observation by Twitter users. They are converted
into values using some converters.
We consider a series of processes in Figure 1 as an element
that has the same function as sensors. We designate it as
a social sensor. According to the definition of a sensor, a
sensor is a transducer that converts a physical, biological, or
chemical parameter into an electric signal. It can be thought
that a sensor comprises two functions as shown in Figure 2.
The first is a collection function that collects parameters of
some kinds. The second is a conversion function that converts
parameters into other signals. Therefore, social sensors need
collection functions and conversion functions.
In a previous study, we realized both functions by applica-
tion of methods of natural language processing and machine
learning to detect earthquake occurrences and to estimate
the epicenter location from Twitter. We achieved a collection
function by creating a classifier for tweets related to earthquake
occurrences by application of text classification methods. We
actualize a conversion function by extracting location informa-
tion from Twitter using a location name dictionary. Therefore,
we can obtain sensory values from Twitter by application of a
social sensor concept.

239
 IEEE R10-HTC2013 Sendai, Japan, August 26-29, 2013

TABLE I. E ARTHQUAKE DETECTION PERFORMANCE FOR TWO

MONTHS FROM AUGUST 2009. ’P ROMPTLY DETECTED ’ DENOTES sensor concept. Therefore, researchers in the web-mining field
DETECTION WITHIN MINUTES . and in the physical sensor field can collaborate in social media
JMA intensity scale 2 or more 3 or more 4 or more
analysis for situational awareness in disasters.
No. of earthquakes 78 25 3
Detected 70 (89.7%) 24 (96.0%) 3 (100.0%)
Promptly detected 53 (67.9%) 20 (80.0%) 3 (100.0%) IV. R ESEARCH OF S OCIAL M EDIA A NALYSIS AS AN
I NFORMATION S HARING T OOL
TABLE II. FACTS ABOUT EARTHQUAKE DETECTION . Social media make it easier for people to communicate
Date Magnitude Location Time E-mail Announce and share information. In a disaster situation, people especially
sent time of JMA use social media to share and collect information related to
Aug. 18 4.5 Tochigi 6:58:55 7:00:30 07:08 disasters. Some researchers have tried to ascertain how people
Aug. 18 3.1 Suruga-wan 19:22:48 19:23:14 19:28
Aug. 21 4.1 Chiba 8:51:16 8:51:35 8:56 use social media during a time of disaster and how information
Aug. 25 4.3 Uraga-oki 2:22:49 2:23:21 02:27 about disasters propagates on social media. We can propose an
Aug. 25 3.5 Fukushima 22:21:16 22:22:29 22:26 effective mode of using social media in a time of disaster using
Aug. 27 3.9 Wakayama 17:47:30 17:48:11 17:53
Aug. 27 2.8 Suruga-wan 20:26:23 20:26:45 20:31 results of these analyses.
Aug. 31 4.5 Fukushima 00:45:54 00:46:24 00:51
Sep. 2 3.3 Suruga-wan 13:04:45 13:05:04 13:10 Some researchers have analyzed how people have used
Sep. 2 3.6 Bungo-suido 17:37:53 17:38:27 17:43 Twitter during crises [12], [13], [14], [3]. Heverin et al.
analyzed its role during violent crimes. They showed that
Twitter is used as one method for citizens, news media
B. Earthquake Detection and Epicenter Location Estimation organizations, and other types of organizations to share crisis-
related information[1]. Miyabe et al. surveyed the user trends
Subsequently, we propose a method to detect earthquake of Twitter after the Great East Japan Earthquake [15] and
occurrence by application of an abnormal detection method analyzed the interaction among Twitter users, especially and
that is often used in network traffic analysis. We think of particularly addressing user location. They found that Twitter
the time change of tweet counts as traffic data and apply the users in less-damaged areas try to propagate information
abnormal detection method and detect earthquake occurrence. posted by users in heavily damaged areas.
Table I depicts the earthquake detection performance. Table II
presents the detection speed of each earthquake using social Some researchers specifically examine information propa-
sensors and the proposed method. These results show that gation in social media independent of user behavior. Bakshy et
social sensors can detect earthquakes with practical precision al. analyzed a vast number of Facebook posts and inferred that
and speed. weak ties might play a more dominant role in the dissemination
of information online than is currently believed. Park et al.
We also proposed a method to estimate the location of an investigated tweet data related to the Domino’s Pizza crisis in
earthquake epicenter by application of a method of location 2009 and revealed that users share their feelings to reduce the
estimation, which is often used in mobile device analysis. negative sentiments of bad news. Mendoza et al. evaluated the
Figure 3 presents the performance of epicenter location estima- reliability of social media as an information source for disaster
tion of earthquakes. This result shows that social sensors can by analyzing information propagation on Twitter during the
estimate the epicenter location of earthquakes with practical Chile Earthquake of 2010[2]. Singh et al. proposed a rumor-
performance. spreading model in Twitter by analyzing tweet data in the
aftermath of a disaster[16]. Miyabe et al. showed a rumor
C. Conclusion of Situation Awareness by Social Sensors stopped by counter rumor posts by users during disasters[17].
We can detect earthquake occurrence and can estimate an
epicenter’s location with practical accuracy using social media V. S OCIAL M EDIA A NALYSIS IN THE G REAT E AST JAPAN
analysis. Additionally, it might be inferred that we can apply E ARTHQUAKE
methods for physical sensor observation of various kinds to
situational awareness in social media by application of a social In this section, we analyze a Twitter dataset in times of
disaster. We show that how people used social media and what
contents people shared on social media during and immediately
after the Great East Japan Earthquake.

A. User Behavior Analysis

Fig. 3. Earthquake location estimation based on tweets. Balloons show
tweets related to an earthquake. Crosses show the earthquake epicenter. Red
represents early tweets; blue shows later tweets.
In this section, we analyze user behavior with our Great
East Japan Earthquake dataset. We explain how people used
Twitter after the catastrophic earthquake occurred.
1) Posting Behavior Analysis: We analyzed the change-
posting activity of Twitter users during the disaster.
To gauge the changes between the number of tweets before
and during the disaster, we present the number of tweets
before the disaster (x-axis) against the average and the median
quantities of tweets during the disaster (y-axis)

240
 IEEE R10-HTC2013
Fig. 4. Tweets before, during and immediately after the disaster.
In Fig. 4, where the horizontal axis represents the total
tweet count between March 7 and March 10, the vertical axis
shows the average and the median of the tweet count of the
users who posted between March 11 and March 14.
Users with large tweet counts before the disaster also had
large tweet counts during and immediately after the disaster.
Looking at the horizontal axis, users with fewer than 100
tweets before the disaster increased their tweet count after it.
Therefore, inactive users also began to tweet. However, users
with more than 100 tweets decreased their tweet counts, espe-
cially the average tweet counts of users with more than 1000
tweets before the disaster, which dropped to about a quarter to
264.3, which suggests that users who frequently tweeted before
the earthquake reduced their tweet count after the disaster.
Normally people spread information more frequently during
a disaster. Why did active users reduce their tweets?
Next we consider what kinds of users tweeted more than
1000 times in four days. The average tweet count was about
15 per day per user. In contrast, users with 1000 tweets in four
days tweeted about 16 times more than average users, which
is a tweet every six minutes. Such users with a large amount
of tweets are very likely to be ’bots’.
Therefore, we inferred that the number of ’bots’ decreased
during the disaster. We checked whether active ’bots’ de-
creased. We assume that the number of human tweets, which
were tweeting fewer than 100 times before the disaster, in-
creased during and immediately after the disaster.
2) User Interaction Behavior Analysis: We analyze how
well replies and retweets were used during the disaster. We
classify users into the following two groups. One includes
pre-retweeters: users who retweeted before the disaster. The
other includes non-retweeters: users who did not retweet before
the disaster. The number of pre-retweeters was 520,302. The
number of non-retweeters was 2,191,171.
Figure 5 shows the cumulative rate of the users who
retweeted after the disaster. The blue line shows the cumulative
rate of the retweeted users of the pre-retweeters. The red
line shows the rate of the non-retweeters. Most users who
retweeted before the disaster also aggressively retweeted after
it. At the end of March 12, 69.0% of the pre-retweeters
241
Sendai, Japan, August 26-29, 2013
Fig. 5. Cumulative rate of retweet users after a disaster.
retweeted after the disaster. However, only 21.4% of the non-
retweeters retweeted simultaneously. At the end of March 23,
which is the limit of our data, 52% of all users and 90.8%
of pre-retweeters retweeted. However, only 43.1% of the non-
retweeters retweeted. In other words, more than half of the
users who had not retweeted before the disaster did not retweet
after it.
We also compared users who used the reply function before
the disaster (pre-repliers) and users who did not (non-repliers).
At the end of March 12, 68.3% of pre-repliers and 25.5% of
non-repliers had used reply after the disaster. At the end of
March 23, 82.3% of all users, 92.9% of pre-repliers, and 68.1%
of non-retweeters used reply.
These facts show that the users who had employed specific
features of social media before the disaster continued to
use them actively during and immediately after the disaster.
However, not all users who had not previously used such
specific features used them after the disaster.
B. Information Propagation Analysis
In this section, we conduct information propagation anal-
ysis using Great East Japan Earthquake Twitter data.
1) Contents Analysis: We classify information that was
diffused widely on Twitter to clarify what kind of information
is necessary for victims.
We used a bipartite graph [18] that consists of tweets and
retweeted users to classify the retweeted tweets. We estimated
that the tweets that were retweeted by identical users share
similarity. Therefore, pairs of tweets with such relationships
are connected by a link to create a network of similar tweets.
By analyzing the network of similar tweets using certain
components, we classified each tweet in terms of users who
have similar interests.
For this study, we assume that tweets in a series of
retweeted tweets by identical users have similar characteristics.
Therefore, we cluster tweets by how overlapping users retweet
them and ascertain what kinds of information were shared
during the analysis period by analyzing the contents of those
clusters.
In this analysis, we used tweets that were retweeted more
than 1000 times to analyze tweets that were diffused over a
certain degree. We constructed a network by extracting the
adjacent retweets from our dataset.
 IEEE R10-HTC2013
Fig. 6. Retweet network.
We represent the overlapping degree of the retweeting users
between Ui and Uj as Oij and apply the Jaccard coefficient[19]
to Oij :
Ui ∩ Uj
Oij = (1)
Ui ∪ Uj
If Oij exceeds threshold value −th, then we link rti and
rtj and construct a network of tweets based on the similarity of
the retweeting users. We chose −th = 0.04, which maximized
the number of network components with more than two nodes.
The network constructed based on these processes is pre-
sented in Fig. 6. It includes only 8 network components with
more than 10 tweets and many components with only a pair
of tweets. However, the number of tweets in a component
represents the variety of topics in the component. The amount
of information propagation in a component is determined by
how many times tweets in the component were retweeted.
We found 168 components in the network. We investigated
components with more retweets as examples to clarify what in-
formation was diffused during the disaster from the viewpoint
of retweet user similarity.
We confirmed the contents of the tweets that were included
in the top five largest retweeted components, shown as A–J in
Fig. 6. The component contents are shown in Table III.
From the viewpoint of information sources, we classified
these five components as public source information (A, D) and
private source information (B,C,E).
From the viewpoint of the tweet contents, these compo-
nents are classifiable as follows. The contents of components
A and B are information calling for attention. The contents
of components C and E are related to the threat from nuclear
accidents. The contents of component D include information
related to electricity shortages. All of this information was
urgently demanded during the disaster.
Results show that Twitter played the following roles with
retweets, which are a powerful information diffusion tools.
• A transit point of information from mass media to
civilians
• A medium that provided information widely to general
users
Using Twitter, people diffused various contents that were
strongly required by the victims and anxious people.
242
Sendai, Japan, August 26-29, 2013
Fig. 7. Retweet Counts of false rumor tweets and counter-rumor tweets.
2) False Rumor Analysis: In a disaster situation, the spread
of false rumors is regarded as a severe problem, especially
on social media. Actually, it is said that some false rumors
prevailed on Twitter after the Great East Japan Earthquake. In
this subsection, we show what false rumors were circulated on
Twitter after the earthquake by analyzing our dataset.
First, we manually extract 1,983 tweets that were retweeted
more than 1,000 times from our dataset and determine whether
they are false information or not. As a consequence of the
investigation, only 12 tweets were found to have false infor-
mation. Therefore, the ratio of false rumors is extremely small.
Additionally, a counter-rumor tweet was propagated several
hours after a false rumor tweet was propagated. A counter-
rumor is information that corrects false rumors. Figure 7
depicts frequency changes of retweeted false rumor tweets and
retweeted counter-rumor tweets. From this figure, the retweet
number of counter-rumor tweets exceeded that of a false rumor
tweets.
It might be inferred from this result that false rumors
propagating on Twitter during a time of a disaster rarely
diffused very much. If they did diffuse to many users, they
were corrected by users within several hours.
C. Conclusion of User Behavior Analysis and Information
Propagation Analysis
The following two facts might be inferred based on results
of user behavior analysis.
• The numbers of bots, constituting an automatic tweet
system, decreased.
• Many users with little experience with such specific
functions as reply and retweet did not use them
continuously after the disaster.
The following two facts might be inferred based on results
of information propagation analysis.
• Retweets were used for the following two purposes.
One relayed information from the mass media. The
other shared information provided by general users.
• The number of false rumor tweets on Twitter during
the Great East Japan Earthquake was very small and
counter-rumor tweets were posted more than false
rumor tweets.
 IEEE R10-HTC2013
TABLE III.
Nodes Retweets
A 33 72893
B 35 64407
C 3 54424
D 28 42129
E 26 38073
Additionally, it can be assumed that we can apply methods
of various kinds in statistics, sociometry, and social network
analysis. Therefore, researchers in the web mining field and in
sociology field can collaborate in social media analysis as an
information sharing tool.
VI. C ONCLUSION
We surveyed studies of social media analysis for dis-
aster management to demonstrate the availability of social
media analysis. Some studies proposed brand-new methods
of situational awareness and their application to real data to
demonstrate their performance. Others analyze social media
data. They reveal how people use social media and what people
share via social media.
We introduce results of our studies as examples. We
presented that it is possible to detect earthquake occurrences
and to estimate epicenter location with practical accuracy
using social sensors and show the possibility of collaboration
between web mining researchers and measurement engineering
researchers. We also propose some advice to use social media
as an information sharing tool by analyzing our Great East
Japan Earthquake tweet dataset and suggesting collaboration
between web mining researchers and sociologists.
It can be inferred from these surveys and results of our
studies that social media analysis presents possibilities and
availability for use in disaster management. Additionally, it
is said that researchers in web mining, sensory detection, and
sociology can collaborate in social media analysis for disaster
management.
Although current studies reveal a variety of phenomena
and possibilities, an important problem persists in this area
of social media analysis for disaster management. It is easy
to answer the question after we know the answer. Similarly,
it is easy to propose what should have been done after a
disaster occurred. Therefore, it remains unknown whether
knowledge acquired from past disasters will be effective for
future disasters. Therefore, we must keep the following in mind
during our research effort, ”Do not follow, look ahead”. We
must develop some system or make a proposal for disasters
and crises yet to come.
R EFERENCES
[1] T. Heverin and L. Zach, “Microblogging for Crisis Communication:
Examination of Twitter Use in Response to a 2009 Violent Crisis in
Seattle-Tacoma, Washington Area,” in Proceedings of the 7th ISCRAM
2010, Seatle, Washington, 2010.
[2] M. Mendoza, B. Poblete, and C. Castillo, “Twitter under crisis: can we
trust what we RT?” in Proceedings of the First Workshop on SOMA
2010. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press, 2010, pp. 71–79.
Sendai, Japan, August 26-29, 2013
S PREAD INFORMATION BY RETWEETS .
Contents
Information calling for attention (media)
Information calling for attention (general users)
Caution about harmful rumors of radiation exposure
Information about planned outages (from mass media)
Information about radiation
[3] S. Vieweg, A. L. Hughes, K. Starbird, and L. Palen, “Microblogging
during two natural hazards events: what twitter may contribute to
situational awareness,” in Proceedings of the SIGCHI 2010, ser. CHI
’10. New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2010, pp. 1079–1088.
[4] T. Sakaki, M. Okazaki, and Y. Matsuo, “Earthquake shakes Twitter
users: real-time event detection by social sensors,” Proceedings of the
19th WWW 2010, pp. 851–860, 2010.
[5] M. A. Cameron, R. Power, B. Robinson, and J. Yin, “Emergency
situation awareness from twitter for crisis management,” in Proceedings
of the WWW 2012 Companion, ser. WWW ’12 Companion. New York,
NY, USA: ACM, 2012, pp. 695–698.
[6] S. Kumar, G. Barbier, M. A. Abbasi, and H. Liu, “Tweettracker: An
analysis tool for humanitarian and disaster relief,” in Proceedings of the
ICWSM 2011. The AAAI Press, 2011.
[7] R. Goolsby, “Social media as crisis platform: The future of community
maps/crisis maps,” ACM Transaction on Intelligent System Technology,
vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 7:1–7:11, oct 2010.
[8] B. Stollberg and T. de Groeve, “The use of social media within the
global disaster alert and coordination system (gdacs),” in Proceedings
of the WWW 2012 Companion, ser. WWW ’12 Companion. New York,
NY, USA: ACM, 2012, pp. 703–706.
[9] S. Verma, S. Vieweg, W. Corvey, L. Palen, J. H. Martin, M. Palmer,
A. Schram, and K. M. Anderson, “Natural language processing to
the rescue? extracting ”situational awareness” tweets during mass
emergency.” in Proceedings of the ICWSM 2011. The AAAI Press,
2011.
[10] A. Murakami and T. Nasukawa, “Tweeting about the tsunami?: mining
twitter for information on the tohoku earthquake and tsunami,” in
Proceedings of the WWW 2012 Companion, ser. WWW ’12 Companion.
New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2012, pp. 709–710.
[11] A. Ishino, S. Odawara, H. Nanba, and T. Takezawa, “Extracting
transportation information and traffic problems from tweets during a
disaster,” in Proceedings of the IMMM 2012. IARIA, 2012, pp. 91–
96.
[12] A. L. Hughes and L. Palen, “Twitter adoption and use in mass con-
vergence and emergency events,” International Journal Of Emergency
Management, vol. 6, no. 3/4, p. 248, 2009.
[13] W. J. Corvey, S. Vieweg, T. Rood, and M. Palmer, “Twitter in mass
emergency: what nlp techniques can contribute,” in Proceedings of the
NAACL HLT 2010 Workshop on WSA 2010. Stroudsburg, PA, USA:
Association for Computational Linguistics, 2010, pp. 23–24.
[14] L. Palen and S. B. Liu, “Citizen communications in crisis: anticipating
a future of ict-supported public participation,” in Proceedings of the
SIGCHI 2007. New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2007, pp. 727–736.
[15] M. Miyabe, A. Miura, and E. Aramaki, “Use trend analysis of twitter
after the great east japan earthquake,” in Proceedings of the CSCW
2012. New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2012, pp. 175–178.
[16] A. Singh and Y. N. Singh, “Rumor spreading and inoculation of nodes in
complex networks,” in Proceedings of the 21st WWW 2012 companion.
New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2012, pp. 675–678.
[17] M. Miyabe, A. Umejima, A. Nadamoto, and E. Aramaki, “Characteristic
analysis of rumor and correction texts on microblog,” Transactions of
Information Processing Society of Japan, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 2230–236,
2013.
[18] S. Wasserman and K. Faust, “Social network analysis: Methods and
applications,” in Structural Analysis in the Social Sciences, vol. 8.
Cambridge University Press, 1994, pp. 299–302.
[19] W. B. Frakes and R. Baeza-Yates, Information Retrieval: Data Struc-
tures and Algorithms. Prentice Hall PTR, 1992.
243