4.6 Article

Local information sources received the most attention from Puerto Ricans during the aftermath of Hurricane Maria

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 16, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251704

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study analyzed the discussion on social media during Hurricane Maria in 2017, finding that Spanish tweets globally contained more messages of hope and focus on helping others, while locally, information mostly originated from local sources among Puerto Ricans. Content from local journalists and politicians overshadowed that from celebrities and global news networks, providing insight into the deployment of social media campaigns for disseminating relief information during similar events in the future.
In September 2017, Hurricane Maria made landfall across the Caribbean region as a category 4 storm. In the aftermath, many residents of Puerto Rico were without power or clean running water for nearly a year. Using both English and Spanish tweets from September 16 to October 15 2017, we investigate discussion of Maria both on and off the island, constructing a proxy for the temporal network of communication between victims of the hurricane and others. We use information theoretic tools to compare the lexical divergence of different subgroups within the network. Lastly, we quantify temporal changes in user prominence throughout the event. We find at the global level that Spanish tweets more often contained messages of hope and a focus on those helping. At the local level, we find that information propagating among Puerto Ricans most often originated from sources local to the island, such as journalists and politicians. Critically, content from these accounts overshadows content from celebrities, global news networks, and the like for the large majority of the time period studied. Our findings reveal insight into ways social media campaigns could be deployed to disseminate relief information during similar events in the future.

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