Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34744256›Full record

ArticleInformation processing & management2022

Multi-stage Internet public opinion risk grading analysis of public health emergencies: An empirical study on Microblog in COVID-19.

Jun Liu, Liyi Liu, Yan Tu, Shixuan Li, Zongmin Li

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Information processing & management, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. COVID-19 Pandemic Risk Assessment: Systematic Review.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jun LiuSchool of Safety Science and Emergency Management, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan 430070, China.
Liyi LiuSchool of Safety Science and Emergency Management, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan 430070, China.
Yan TuSchool of Safety Science and Emergency Management, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan 430070, China.
Shixuan LiSchool of Safety Science and Emergency Management, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan 430070, China.
Zongmin LiSchool of Business, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610065, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the period of Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), millions of people participate in the discussion of COVID-19 on the Internet, which can easily trigger public opinion and threaten social stability. This paper creatively proposes a multi-stage risk grading model of Internet public opinion for public health emergencies. On the basis of general public opinion risk grading analysis, the model continuously pays attention to the risk level of Internet public opinion based on the time scale of regular or major information updates. This model combines Analytic Hierarchy Process Sort II (AHPSort II) and Swing Weighting (SW) methods and proposes a new Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) method - AHPSort II-SW. Intuitionistic fuzzy number and linguistic fuzzy number are introduced into the model to evaluate the criteria that cannot be quantified. The multi-stage model is tested using more than 2,000 textual data about COVID-19 collected from Microblog, a leading social media platform in China. Seven public opinion risk assessments were conducted from January 23 to April 8, 2020. The empirical results show that in the early COVID-19 outbreak, the risk of public opinion is more serious on macroscopic view. In details, the risk of public opinion decreases slowly with time, but the emergence of important events may still increase the risk of public opinion. The analysis results are in line with the actual situation and verify the effectiveness of the method. Comparative analysis indicates the improved method is proved to be superior and effective, sensitivity analysis confirms its stability. Finally, management suggestions was provided, this study contributes to the literature on public opinion risk assessment and provides implications for practice.

Indexed as

AHPSort II-SWCOVID-19Internet public opinionMCDMPublic health emergenciesRisk grading

Identifiers

PMID34744256
PMCPMC8556697

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.