skip to main content
10.1145/2537734.2537737acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesadcsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Classifying microblogs for disasters

Authors Info & Claims
Published:05 December 2013Publication History

ABSTRACT

Monitoring social media in critical disaster situations can potentially assist emergency and media personnel to deal with events as they unfold, and focus their resources where they are most needed. We address the issue of filtering massive amounts of Twitter data to identify high-value messages related to disasters, and to further classify disaster-related messages into those pertaining to particular disaster types, such as earthquake, flooding, fire, or storm. Unlike post-hoc analysis that most previous studies have done, we focus on building a classification model on past incidents to detect tweets about current incidents. Our experimental results demonstrate the feasibility of using classification methods to identify disaster-related tweets. We analyse the effect of different features in classifying tweets and show that using generic features rather than incident-specific ones leads to better generalisation on the effectiveness of classifying unseen incidents.

References

  1. F. Abel, C. Hauff, G. Houben, R. Stronkman, and K. Tao. Semantics + filtering + search = Twitcident. Exploring information in social web streams. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM conference on Hypertext and social media, pages 285--294, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. A. Bruns and Jean E. Burgess. Researching new discussion on Twitter: New methodologies. Journalism Studies, pages 801--814, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. C. Chang and C. Lin. LIBSVM: A library for support vector machines. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, 2(3): 27:1--27:27, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Y. Duan, F. Wei, M. Zhou, and H. Shum. Graph-based collective classification for tweets. In Proceedings of the 21st ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management, pages 2323--2326, Maui, Hawaii, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. S. Geisser. A predictive approach to the random effect mode. Biometrika Trust, 61(9): 101--107, 1974.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. A. Juan and H. Ney. Reversing and smoothing the multinomial Naïve Bayes text classifier. In Proceedings of the 2nd Int. Workshop on Pattern Recognition in Information Systems, pages 200--212, Ciudad Real, Spain, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. S. Karimi and J. Yin. Microtext annotation. Technical Report EP13703, CSIRO, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. S. Karimi, Jie Yin, and P. Thomas. Searching and filtering tweets: CSIRO at the TREC 2012 microblog track. In Text Retrieval Conference, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. J. Lanagan and A. F. Smeaton. Using Twitter to detect and tag important events in sports media. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, pages 542--545, Barcelona, Spain, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. J. Lingad, S. Karimi, and J. Yin. Location extraction from disaster-related microblogs. In Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on World Wide Web companion, pages 1017--1020, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. X. Liu, J. Wu, and Z. Zhou. Exploratory under-sampling for class-imbalance learning. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 39(2): 965--969, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. K. Nishida, T. Hoshide, and K. Fujimura. Improving tweet stream classification by detecting changes in word probability. In Proceedings of the 35th international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, pages 971--980, Portland, Oregon, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. T. Sakaki, M. Okazaki, and Y. Matsuo. Earthquake shakes Twitter users: real-time event detection by social sensors. In Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web, pages 851--860, Raleigh, North Carolina, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. J. Sankaranarayanan, H. Samet, B. E. Teitler, M. D. Lieberman, and J. Sperling. Twitterstand: news in tweets. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGSPATIAL International Conference on Advances in Geographic Information Systems, pages 42--51, Seattle, Washington, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. N. D. Sreenivasan, C. S. Lee, and D. H. L. Goh. Tweet me home: exploring information use on twitter in crisis situations. In Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Online communities and social computing, pages 120--129, Orlando, FL, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. B. Sriram, D. Fuhry, E. Demir, H. Ferhatosmanoglu, and M. Demirbas. Short text classification in Twitter to improve information filtering. In Proceedings of the 33rd international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, pages 841--842, Geneva, Switzerland, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. K. Starbird, L. Palen, A. L. Hughes, and S. Vieweg. Chatter on the red: what hazards threat reveals about the social life of microblogged information. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, pages 241--250, Savannah, Georgia, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. H. Takemura and K. Tajima. Tweet classification based on their lifetime duration. In Proceedings of the 21st ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management, pages 2367--2370, Maui, Hawaii, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. S. Verma, S. Vieweg, W. J. 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 5th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, Barcelona, Spain, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. J. Vosecky, K. Wai-Ting Leung, and W. Ng. Searching for quality microblog posts: Filtering and ranking based on content analysis and implicit links. In 17th International Conference on Database Systems for Advanced Applications, pages 397--413, Busan, South Korea, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. J. Yin, S. Karimi, B. Robinson, and M. Cameron. ESA: emergency situation awareness via microbloggers. In Proceedings of the 21st ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management, pages 2701--2703, Maui, Hawaii, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Classifying microblogs for disasters

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      ADCS '13: Proceedings of the 18th Australasian Document Computing Symposium
      December 2013
      126 pages
      ISBN:9781450325240
      DOI:10.1145/2537734

      Copyright © 2013 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 5 December 2013

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      ADCS '13 Paper Acceptance Rate12of23submissions,52%Overall Acceptance Rate30of57submissions,53%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader