4.6 Article

A conceptual framework for studying collective reactions to events in location-based social media

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/13658816.2018.1546390

关键词

Spatio-temporal; social; event-reaction; information-spread; sentiment

资金

  1. German Research Foundation as part of the priority programme 'Volunteered Geographic Information: Interpretation, Visualisation and Social Computing' (VGIscience) [SPP 1894]
  2. Swiss National Science Foundation [200021E-166788]
  3. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [200021E-166788] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Events are a core concept of spatial information, but location-based social media (LBSM) provide information on reactions to events. Individuals have varied degrees of agency in initiating, reacting to or modifying the course of events, and reactions include observations of occurrence, expressions containing sentiment or emotions, or a call to action. Key characteristics of reactions include referent events and information about who reacted, when, where and how. Collective reactions are composed of multiple individual reactions sharing common referents. They can be characterized according to the following dimensions: spatial, temporal, social, thematic and interlinkage. We present a conceptual framework, which allows characterization and comparison of collective reactions. For a thematically well-defined class of event such as storms, we can explore differences and similarities in collective attribution of meaning across space and time. Other events may have very complex spatio-temporal signatures (e.g. political processes such as Brexit or elections), which can be decomposed into series of individual events (e.g. a temporal window around the result of a vote). The purpose of our framework is to explore ways in which collective reactions to events in LBSM can be described and underpin the development of methods for analysing and understanding collective reactions to events.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据