ArticleInformation processing & management2023
Public opinion changing patterns under the double-hazard scenario of natural disaster and public health event.
Article in Information processing & management, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- How Does Public Opinion Evolve in the Post-Truth Era? A Modeling and Simulation Study of Group Negative Emotion in Deviation Communities.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A Public Opinion Propagation Model for Human-Made Disasters Considering Herd Behavior and Psychological Involvement.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Study on the spreading amplification effect of compound disaster rumors involving multiple public safety events.Fundamental research · 2025Article
- A public opinion propagation model for technological disasters.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Risk identification and assessment of Internet public opinion on public emergencies based on Bayesian network and association rule mining.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the context of the COVID-19 epidemic, a "double-hazard scenario" consisting of a natural disaster and a public health event occurring simultaneously is likely to arise. Focusing on this double-hazard scenario, this study developed a new opinion dynamics model that verifies the effect of opinion dynamic in practical applications and extends the realistic meaning of the logic matrix. The new model can be used to quickly identify changing trends in public opinion about two co-occurring public safety events in China, helping the government to better anticipate and respond to these real double-hazard scenarios. The new model was tested with three real double-hazard scenarios involving natural disasters and public health events in China and the simulation results were analyzed. Using visualization and Pearson correlation coefficients to analyze more than a million items of network-wide public opinion data, the new model was found to show a good fit with reality. The study finally found that in China, public attention to both natural hazards and public health events was greater when these public safety events co-occurred (double-hazard scenario) than when they occurred separately (single-hazard scenarios). These results verify the coupling phenomenon of different disasters in a multi-hazard scenario at the information level for the first time, which is greatly meaningful for multi-hazard research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.