ArticleScientific reports2026
Risk assessment of earthquake online public opinion based on behavioral motivation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
During sudden natural disasters, people participated in online discussions based on different behavioral motivations, thus forming a unique online public opinion on earthquakes. Online public discourse accompanying an earthquake event introduces a risk to public opinion, where rumors can quickly incite public panic. This paper begins by examining the four factors of earthquake online public opinion. It constructs a public opinion risk evaluation index system that incorporates earthquakes, social media users (netizens), media, and the government. Secondly, the indicators are further selected through correlation analysis and principal component analysis, and after rationality testing, a more scientific and complete risk evaluation index system is obtained. Thirdly, the entropy weight method is employed to determine the weights of the index system. Finally, this paper takes the Mwg 5.7 earthquake in Yibin, China, as an example. The public opinion risk values for the online public opinion burst period, spreading period, and dissipation period are calculated, respectively, and the overall public opinion risk value is determined. The risks are graded, and the corresponding emergency countermeasures are put forward. Through research, we found that the public opinion risk assessment system established in this paper effectively analyzes and evaluates earthquake online public opinion. It provides valuable insights for government agencies (such as emergency management, public relations, and earthquake bureaus) in responding to earthquake online public opinion, helping to deliver accurate information and correct any misinformation that may spread, thus enabling more effective earthquake relief efforts and post-disaster reconstruction.
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.