skip to main content
research-article

Exploring Temporal and Multilingual Dynamics of Post-Disaster Social Media Discourse: A Case of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident

Published:16 April 2023Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster has led to worldwide disruptive discussions related to crisis. In April 2021, the news that the Japanese Cabinet decided to discharge the stored wastewater into the Pacific Ocean drew global attention once again. Social media platforms like Twitter are ubiquitously used to gain information and exchange opinions during and after a crisis. Analyzing crisis-related tweets can help capture insights for public situational awareness development, crisis global response coordination, and post-disaster policy-making. We examined corresponding Twitter discourse in different languages about the nuclear disaster in 2011 and the follow-up discharge of the stored water until 2021. We utilized NLP techniques including topic modeling and sentiment analysis to identify the dominant topics related to the nuclear disaster, the post-disaster discourses, and the public attitudes towards these topics in different time phases. Our work revealed multilingual disparities of post-disaster discourse dynamics and the regional public attitudes towards the post-disaster management in the long run.

References

  1. International Atomic Energy Agency. 2020. IAEA Follow-up Review of Progress Made on Management of ALPS Treated Water and the Report of the Subcommittee on Handling of ALPS treated water at TEPCO's Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station. (2020). https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/20/04/review-report-020420.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Daniel P Aldrich. 2012. Building resilience: Social capital in post-disaster recovery. University of Chicago Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. David E Alexander. 2014. Social media in disaster risk reduction and crisis management. Science and engineering ethics 20, 3 (2014), 717--733.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. World Nuclear Association. 2021. Fukushima Daiichi Accident. (2021). https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-daiichi-accident.aspxGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Erik Behrens, Franziska U Schwarzkopf, Joke F Lübbecke, and Claus W Böning. 2012. Model simulations on the long-term dispersal of 137Cs released into the Pacific Ocean off Fukushima. Environmental Research Letters 7, 3 (2012), 034004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. MARTIN BENJAMIN. [n.d.]. Empirical Evaluation of Google Translate across 107 Languages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Nogrady Bianca. 2021. Scientists OK plan to release one million tonnes of waste water from Fukushima. Nature (2021). https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01225--2Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Andrew R Binder. 2012. Figuring out# Fukushima: An initial look at functions and content of US Twitter commentary about nuclear risk. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture 6, 2 (2012), 268--277.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. David M Blei, Andrew Y Ng, and Michael I Jordan. 2003. Latent dirichlet allocation. the Journal of machine Learning research 3 (2003), 993--1022.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Uuf Brajawidagda, Akemi Takeoka Chatfield, and Christopher G Reddick. 2015. The imperative of government transparency in crisis communication: the case of AirAsia QZ8501 crash. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research. 51--60.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Penelope Brown, Stephen C Levinson, and Stephen C Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Vol. 4. Cambridge university press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Davide Buscaldi and Irazú Hernandez-Farias. 2015. Sentiment analysis on microblogs for natural disasters management: a study on the 2014 genoa floodings. In Proceedings of the 24th international conference on world wide web. 1185--1188.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Naun Chae. 2021. . [The South Korean government express regret to Japan's unilateral decision to dump treated radioactive water] . JoongAng Ilbo (2021). https://archive.ph/20210414034852/https://news.joins.com/article/24033842Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Daegon Cho and K Hazel Kwon. 2015. The impacts of identity verification and disclosure of social cues on flaming in online user comments. Computers in Human Behavior 51 (2015), 363--372.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Aaron Clark. 2021. U.S. Friends Join China in Ripping Japan Plan on Fukushima Water. Bloomberg News (2021). https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04--12/japan-to-dump-treated-radioactive-fukushima-water-into-oceanGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Weiwei Cui, Shixia Liu, Li Tan, Conglei Shi, Yangqiu Song, Zekai Gao, Huamin Qu, and Xin Tong. 2011. Textflow: Towards better understanding of evolving topics in text. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 17, 12 (2011), 2412--2421.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Dharma Dailey and Kate Starbird. 2017. Social media seamsters: Stitching platforms & audiences into local crisis infrastructure. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. 1277--1289.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Julie L Demuth, Rebecca E Morss, Leysia Palen, Kenneth M Anderson, Jennings Anderson, Marina Kogan, Kevin Stowe, Melissa Bica, Heather Lazrus, Olga Wilhelmi, et al . 2018. Sometimes da# beachlife ain't always da wave": Understanding People's Evolving Hurricane Risk Communication, Risk Assessments, and Responses Using Twitter Narratives. Weather, climate, and society 10, 3 (2018), 537--560.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Pacific Islands Forum. 2021. Statement by Dame Meg Taylor, Secretary General of the Pacific Islands Forum, Regarding the Japan Decision to Release ALPS Treated Water into the Pacific Ocean. (2021). https://www.forumsec.org/2021/04/13/statement-by-dame-meg-taylor-secretary-general-of-the-pacific-islands-forum-regarding-the-japan-decision-to-release-alps-treated-water-into-the-pacific-ocean/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Rebecca Goolsby. 2010. Social media as crisis platform: The future of community maps/crisis maps. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST) 1, 1 (2010), 1--11.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Aya Goto, Rima E Rudd, Alden Y Lai, Kazuki Yoshida, Yuu Suzuki, Donald D Halstead, Hiromi Yoshida-Komiya, and Michael R Reich. 2014. Leveraging public health nurses for disaster risk communication in Fukushima City: a qualitative analysis of nurses' written records of parenting counseling and peer discussions. BMC Health Services Research 14, 1 (2014), 1--9.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. South Korean government taskforce led by Ministry of Oceans, Fisheries, the Nuclear Safety, and Security Commission. 2020. . Impact of the Contaminated Water at Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant. (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Melissa W Graham, Elizabeth J Avery, and Sejin Park. 2015. The role of social media in local government crisis communications. Public Relations Review 41, 3 (2015), 386--394.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Marianne Guenot. 2021. Russia joins China and South Korea in expressing 'serious concern' at Japan's plan to release waste water from the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Business Insider (2021). https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-japan-plans-fukushima-wastewater-nuclear-south-korea-china-2021--4Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Shin Hasegawa, Teppei Suzuki, Ayako Yagahara, Reiko Kanda, Tatsuo Aono, Kazuaki Yajima, and Katsuhiko Ogasawara. 2020. Changing Emotions About Fukushima Related to the Fukushima Nuclear Power Station Accident-How Rumors Determined People's Attitudes: Social Media Sentiment Analysis. Journal of medical Internet research 22, 9 (2020), e18662.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Susan Havre, Elizabeth Hetzler, Paul Whitney, and Lucy Nowell. 2002. Themeriver: Visualizing thematic changes in large document collections. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 8, 1 (2002), 9--20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Changyang He, Lu He, Tun Lu, and Bo Li. 2021. Beyond Entertainment: Unpacking Danmaku and Comments' Role of Information Sharing and Sentiment Expression in Online Crisis Videos. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW2 (2021), 1--27.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Monica Webb Hooper, Anna María Nápoles, and Eliseo J Pérez-Stable. 2020. COVID-19 and racial/ethnic disparities. Jama 323, 24 (2020), 2466--2467.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Amanda Lee Hughes and Leysia Palen. 2009. Twitter adoption and use in mass convergence and emergency events. International journal of emergency management 6, 3--4 (2009), 248--260.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Clayton Hutto and Eric Gilbert. 2014. Vader: A parsimonious rule-based model for sentiment analysis of social media text. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Vol. 8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Jordi Vives i Batlle, Tatsuo Aono, Justin E Brown, Ali Hosseini, Jacqueline Garnier-Laplace, Tatiana Sazykina, Frits Steenhuisen, and Per Strand. 2014. The impact of the Fukushima nuclear accident on marine biota: retrospective assessment of the first year and perspectives. Science of the total environment 487 (2014), 143--153.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Greenpeace International. 2021. The Japanese government's decision to discharge Fukushima contaminated water ignores human rights and international maritime law. Greenpeace (2021). https://www.greenpeace.org/international/press-release/47207/the-japanese-governments-decision-to-discharge-fukushima-contaminated-water-ignores-human-rights-and-international-maritime-law/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Conca James. 2019. It's Really OK If Japan Dumps Radioactive Fukushima Water Into The Ocean. Forbes (2019). https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/09/12/its-really-ok-if-japan-dumps-radioactive-fukushima-water-into-the-ocean/'sh=51f83cf5b298Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Aparup Khatua, Erik Cambria, Shirley S Ho, and Jin Cheon Na. 2020. Deciphering public opinion of nuclear energy on twitter. In 2020 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN). IEEE, 1--8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Aparup Khatua and Apalak Khatua. 2016. Immediate and long-term effects of 2016 Zika Outbreak: A Twitter-based study. In 2016 IEEE 18th international conference on e-health networking, applications and services (HealthCom). IEEE, 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Aparup Khatua, Apalak Khatua, and Erik Cambria. 2019. A tale of two epidemics: Contextual Word2Vec for classifying twitter streams during outbreaks. Information Processing & Management 56, 1 (2019), 247--257.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Patrick Kiger. 2013. Fukushima's Radioactive Water Leak: What You Should Know. National Geographic News (2013). https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/130807-fukushima-radioactive-water-leakGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Kirill Kireyev, Leysia Palen, and Kenneth Anderson. 2009. Applications of topics models to analysis of disaster-related twitter data. In NIPS workshop on applications for topic models: text and beyond, Vol. 1. Canada: Whistler.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Marina Kogan, Leysia Palen, and Kenneth M Anderson. 2015. Think local, retweet global: Retweeting by the geographically-vulnerable during Hurricane Sandy. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing. 981--993.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Haewoon Kwak, Changhyun Lee, Hosung Park, and Sue Moon. 2010. What is Twitter, a social network or a news media?. In Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web. 591--600.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Mingyang Li, Louis Hickman, Louis Tay, Lyle Ungar, and Sharath Chandra Guntuku. 2020. Studying Politeness across Cultures Using English Twitter and Mandarin Weibo. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4, CSCW2 (2020), 1--15.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Nan Li, Heather Akin, Leona Yi-Fan Su, Dominique Brossard, Michael Xenos, and Dietram A Scheufele. 2016. Tweeting disaster: An analysis of online discourse about nuclear power in the wake of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident. Journal of Science Communication 15, 5 (2016), A02.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Alexis Madrigal. 2013. # BostonBombing: The anatomy of a misinformation disaster. The Atlantic 19 (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Justin McCurry. 2021. Fukushima: Japan announces it will dump contaminated water into sea. The Guardian (2021). https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/13/fukushima-japan-to-start-dumping-contaminated-water-pacific-oceanGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Trade Ministry of Economy and Industry. 2020. The Subcommittee on Handling of the ALPS Treated Water Report. (2020). https://www.meti.go.jp/english/earthquake/nuclear/decommissioning/pdf/20200210_alps.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Kakuko Miyata, Hitoshi Yamamoto, and Yuki Ogawa. 2015. What affects the spiral of silence and the hard core on Twitter? An analysis of the nuclear power issue in Japan. American Behavioral Scientist 59, 9 (2015), 1129--1141.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. YC News. 2021. One million tons of nuclear sewage from Fukushima, Japan will be discharged into the Pacific Ocean? International organizations warn: or damage human DNA. (2021). https://ycnews.com/one-million-tons-of-nuclear-sewage-from-fukushima-japan-will-be-discharged-into-the-pacific-ocean-international-organizations-warn-or-damage-human-dna/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Baccouri Nidhal. 2021. deep-translate. https://pypi.org/project/deep-translator/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Dennis Normile. 2016. Epidemic of fear. American Association for the Advancement of Science (2016).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. Hyun Jung Oh and Hyegyu Lee. 2019. When do people verify and share health rumors on social media? The effects of message importance, health anxiety, and health literacy. Journal of health communication 24, 11 (2019), 837--847.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  51. Marcos A. Orellana, Michael Fakhri, and David Boyd. 2021. Japan: UN experts say deeply disappointed by decision to discharge Fukushima water. (2021). https://web.archive.org/web/20210415221109/https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=27000&LangID=EGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. World Health Organization. 2013. Health risk assessment from the nuclear accident after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami. (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Leysia Palen. 2008. Online social media in crisis events. Educause quarterly 31, 3 (2008), 76--78.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Leysia Palen and Kenneth M Anderson. 2016. Crisis informatics-New data for extraordinary times. Science 353, 6296 (2016), 224--225.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Leysia Palen, Sarah Vieweg, Sophia B Liu, and Amanda Lee Hughes. 2009. Crisis in a networked world: Features of computer-mediated communication in the April 16, 2007, Virginia Tech event. Social Science Computer Review 27, 4 (2009), 467--480.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 311--318.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Jaziar Radianti, Starr Roxanne Hiltz, and Leire Labaka. 2016. An overview of public concerns during the recovery period after a major earthquake: Nepal twitter analysis. In 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS). IEEE, 136--145.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. Anna Rantasila, Anu Sirola, Arto Kekkonen, Katja Valaskivi, and Risto Kunelius. 2018. # fukushima Five Years On: A Multimethod Analysis of Twitter on the Anniversary of the Nuclear Disaster. International Journal of Communication 12 (2018), 22.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Jeanette Ruiz, Jade D Featherstone, and George A Barnett. 2021. Identifying Vaccine Hesitant Communities on Twitter and their Geolocations: A Network Approach. In Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii international conference on system sciences. 3964.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  60. Takeshi Sakaki, Makoto Okazaki, and Yutaka Matsuo. 2010. Earthquake shakes twitter users: real-time event detection by social sensors. In Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web. 851--860.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. Takeshi Sakaki, Makoto Okazaki, and Yutaka Matsuo. 2012. Tweet analysis for real-time event detection and earthquake reporting system development. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 25, 4 (2012), 919--931.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. Aleksandra Sarcevic, Leysia Palen, Joanne White, Kate Starbird, Mossaab Bagdouri, and Kenneth Anderson. 2012. " Beacons of hope" in decentralized coordination: learning from on-the-ground medical twitterers during the 2010 Haiti earthquake. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on computer supported cooperative work. 47--56.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  63. Ranjan Satapathy, Iti Chaturvedi, Erik Cambria, Shirley S Ho, and Jin Cheon Na. 2017. Subjectivity detection in nuclear energy tweets. Computación y Sistemas 21, 4 (2017), 657--664.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. Anna Schmidt and Michael Wiegand. 2017. A survey on hate speech detection using natural language processing. In Proceedings of the fifth international workshop on natural language processing for social media. 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  65. James Schwab, Kenneth C Topping, Charles C Eadie, Robert E Deyle, and Richard A Smith. 1998. Planning for post-disaster recovery and reconstruction. American Planning Association Chicago, IL.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. Farhana Shahid, Shahinul Hoque Ony, Takrim Rahman Albi, Sriram Chellappan, Aditya Vashistha, and ABM Alim Al Islam. 2020. Learning from tweets: Opportunities and challenges to inform policy making during Dengue epidemic. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4, CSCW1 (2020), 1--27.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  67. Aaron Sheldrick. 2012. Fukushima operator must learn from mistakes, new adviser says. Reuters (2012). https://www.reuters.com/article/japan-nuclear-adviser-fukushima-idINDEE89C03220121013?edition-redirect=inGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. Lisa Singh, Shweta Bansal, Leticia Bode, Ceren Budak, Guangqing Chi, Kornraphop Kawintiranon, Colton Padden, Rebecca Vanarsdall, Emily Vraga, and Yanchen Wang. 2020. A first look at COVID-19 information and misinformation sharing on Twitter. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.13907 (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  69. Robert Soden and Leysia Palen. 2018. Informating crisis: Expanding critical perspectives in crisis informatics. Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction 2, CSCW (2018), 1--22.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  70. Kate Starbird, Leysia Palen, Amanda L Hughes, and Sarah Vieweg. 2010. 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. 241--250.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  71. Loria Steven. 2020. TextBlob. https://textblob.readthedocs.io/en/dev/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  72. Leo Graiden Stewart, Ahmer Arif, A Conrad Nied, Emma S Spiro, and Kate Starbird. 2017. Drawing the lines of contention: Networked frame contests within# BlackLivesMatter discourse. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 1, CSCW (2017), 1--23.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  73. Per Strand, Tatsuo Aono, JE Brown, Jacqueline Garnier-Laplace, Ali Hosseini, Tatiana Sazykina, F Steenhuisen, and J Vives i Batlle. 2014. Assessment of Fukushima-derived radiation doses and effects on wildlife in Japan. Environmental Science & Technology Letters 1, 3 (2014), 198--203.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  74. Robert Thomson, Naoya Ito, Hinako Suda, Fangyu Lin, Yafei Liu, Ryo Hayasaka, Ryuzo Isochi, and Zhou Wang. 2012. Trusting tweets: The Fukushima disaster and information source credibility on Twitter.. In Iscram.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  75. Masaharu Tsubokura, Yosuke Onoue, Hiroyuki A Torii, Saori Suda, Kohei Mori, Yoshitaka Nishikawa, Akihiko Ozaki, and Kazuko Uno. 2018. Twitter use in scientific communication revealed by visualization of information spreading by influencers within half a year after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident. PloS one 13, 9 (2018), e0203594.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  76. Baskut Tuncak. 2020. Fukushima nuclear waste decision also a human rights issue. Kyodo News (2020). https://web.archive.org/web/20200713174918/https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2020/07/1145e5b3970f-opinion-fukushima-nuclear-waste-decision-also-a-human-rights-issue.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  77. Baskut Tuncak, michael Fakhri, Clément Nyaletsossi Voule, and José Francisco Calí-Tzay. 2020. Fukushima: Japan must not ignore human rights obligations on nuclear waste disposal -- UN experts. (2020). https://web.archive.org/web/20200615045339/https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=25940&LangID=EGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  78. Sarah Vieweg, Amanda L Hughes, Kate Starbird, and Leysia Palen. 2010. Microblogging during two natural hazards events: what twitter may contribute to situational awareness. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1079--1088.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  79. Marco Viviani and Gabriella Pasi. 2017. Credibility in social media: opinions, news, and health information-a survey. Wiley interdisciplinary reviews: Data mining and knowledge discovery 7, 5 (2017), e1209.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  80. Cécile Wendling, Jack Radisch, and Stephane Jacobzone. 2013. The use of social media in risk and crisis communication. (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  81. KBS World. 2021. Korean Nuclear Society Dismisses Concerns over Fukushima Water Release. (2021). http://world.kbs.co.kr/service/news_view.htm?lang=e&Seq_Code=161112Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  82. Jianhua Yin and Jianyong Wang. 2014. A dirichlet multinomial mixture model-based approach for short text clustering. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. 233--242.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  83. Yonhap. 2021. S. Korea, Central American countries express 'deep concerns' over ocean discharge of harmful materials. Yonhap News Agency (2021). https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20210423003100325Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  84. Yonhap. 2021. S. Korea, Mexico share concerns about Japan's Fukushima decision. The Korea Herald (2021). http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20210424000033Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  85. Jason Shuo Zhang, Brian C Keegan, Qin Lv, and Chenhao Tan. 2020. Understanding the Diverging User Trajectories in Highly-related Online Communities during the COVID-19 Pandemic. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.04816 (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Exploring Temporal and Multilingual Dynamics of Post-Disaster Social Media Discourse: A Case of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident

    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

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
      Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction  Volume 7, Issue CSCW1
      CSCW
      April 2023
      3836 pages
      EISSN:2573-0142
      DOI:10.1145/3593053
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2023 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 the author(s) 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: 16 April 2023
      Published in pacmhci Volume 7, Issue CSCW1

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader