A Deep Learning Approach for Tweet Classification and Rescue Scheduling for Effective Disaster Management

Md. Yasin Kabir; Sanjay Madria

REVIEW 5 major objections 7 minor 41 references

A Deep Learning Approach for Tweet Classification and Rescue Scheduling for Effective Disaster Management

T0 review · 5 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A hybrid attention network with hand-built punctuation features classifies crisis tweets more accurately than standard machine learning, and a multi-task scheduler cuts rescue waiting times.

desk verdict A competent applied systems paper whose four-class tweet classifier delivers a real empirical result; the rescue-scheduling half is a demo built on hand-set priorities and synthetic data, so the headline 'correct priority' claim does not hold. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01456 v1 pith:VXUL7ZML submitted 2019-08-05 cs.SI cs.LGstat.ML

Md. Yasin Kabir , Sanjay Madria This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.SIcs.LGstat.ML

keywords disastermanagementtweetclassificationdeeplearningattentionmechanismbidirectionalLSTMconvolutionalneuralnetworkrescueschedulingpriority

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to show that social-media posts can be turned into an automated disaster-response pipeline: tweets in, prioritized rescue tasks out. It claims that a hybrid deep-learning classifier, built from attention-based bidirectional LSTM, convolutional layers, and a hand-engineered auxiliary feature map of punctuation and emotion signals, labels crisis tweets into six overlapping categories (rescue needed, flood, water needed, disabled/elderly/children/women, injured, sick) with higher precision, recall, F1, and accuracy than logistic regression, support vector machines, or a plain CNN on Hurricane Harvey and Irma data. The same model, the paper argues, transfers to other crisis datasets and to a merged set spanning fifteen disasters. Finally, it claims a multi-task hybrid scheduling algorithm that groups nearby rescue requests and balances priorities yields lower average waiting time than first-come-first-served or priority-only scheduling. If the claims hold, the work provides a concrete route from raw tweets to ranked rescue missions with location, priority, and service-time estimates attached.

What carries the argument

The classifier's load-bearing innovation is the auxiliary feature map: a vector of hand-engineered signals (polarity, subjectivity, sentiment, exclamation and question marks, digit-to-length and digit-to-word ratios, punctuation ratios, noun and sentiment proportions, capitalized and repeated words, hashtag counts) computed from each tweet and concatenated into the dense layers alongside the attention-weighted bidirectional-LSTM and convolutional text representation, letting the network exploit the compressed, symbol-heavy way people write rescue tweets. The scheduler's load-bearing mechanism is the multi-task hybrid algorithm: it sorts tasks by a priority score computed as a base value plus weighted class labels plus environmental-severity features, groups tasks within a two-mile radius into a single rescue mission whenever a unit has spare capacity, sub-schedules grouped tasks by priority then burst time then arrival time, and predicts future burst times by exponential averaging of observed completion times.

What would settle it

Take the 174 Harvey rescue tweets, replace the automatically extracted locations with the true tweet coordinates (or with locations deliberately perturbed by 1–3 miles), rerun the multi-task hybrid scheduler with 10 and 20 units, and compare mean waiting time; if the multi-task hybrid no longer beats first-come-first-served under realistic location error, the central scheduling claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that an architecture it calls CNN_AAf — a network combining attention-based bidirectional LSTM layers with convolutional layers and a separately computed auxiliary feature map — outperforms the standard baselines on crisis-tweet classification, and that the priority scores derived from its multi-label outputs make a multi-task hybrid scheduler beat first-come-first-served and priority-only scheduling on average waiting time. On the manually labeled Harvey–Irma test set the paper reports weighted-average precision 81.7, recall 93.4, F1 87.2, and accuracy 93.7, compared with F1 between 69.7 and 73.9 and accuracy between 84.5 and 88.5 for logistic regression, SVM, and CNN. On a merged dataset of fifteen disasters, it reports accuracy 93.6 against 73.2–85.8 for the same baselines. In the scheduling experiments, the multi-task hybrid reports mean average waiting time of 2.24 hours with 10 rescue units and 1.31 hours with 20, below both FCFS and priority scheduling; a Port Arthur simulation with 2 units gives average waiting time 137 minutes, dropping to 49 minutes with 4 units.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the locations pulled from tweets by the named-entity recognizer and map service are accurate enough for the two-mile grouping to put genuinely nearby rescue requests together; the paper never measures this accuracy, and if locations are noisy the scheduling improvements are not reliable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

On the paper's Harvey–Irma test set, the reported gains imply that adding attention and auxiliary features lifts weighted F1 by roughly 14 points over the best baseline (87.2 vs 73.9) and accuracy by about 5 points (93.7 vs 88.5), so a deployed system would misroute fewer help requests.
The cross-disaster results imply the model generalizes to new events rather than memorizing hurricane-specific wording, so it could be used for a fresh disaster without extensive retraining.
If the scheduling results hold, combining nearby tasks into one mission reduces mean waiting time by about 0.3 hours with 10 units and about 0.3 hours with 20 units compared with first-come-first-served, and by more against priority scheduling, meaning more people are reached sooner with the same fleet.
The Port Arthur simulation implies that adding rescue units compounds the scheduler's benefit, cutting average waiting time from 137 to 49 minutes when going from 2 to 4 units.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

An extension the paper leaves implicit is a sensitivity analysis of the two-mile grouping radius; varying that radius and measuring waiting time against travel cost would show whether the multi-task advantage is robust or an artifact of the chosen distance.
Because the priority weights are hand-assigned, a natural next step is learning them from outcome data such as actual rescue completion times; the paper itself says automatic weight determination remains open, and this is where a deployed system would most need validation.
The classifier evaluation discards the injured and sick classes because labeled instances were scarce, even though those are arguably the highest-priority classes; collecting more labeled examples of those classes and re-measuring six-class performance would be a direct test of the full pipeline.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

Here's the short version: the paper is a competent applied systems paper whose classification half mostly delivers, and whose scheduling half is much weaker than the abstract claims. Treat it as evidence for the model on four classes, not for 'correct priority' or for validated rescue scheduling.

What's actually new: a multi-label classifier combining attention BiLSTM, CNN, and handcrafted punctuation/digit auxiliary features, tested on Harvey/Irma plus CrisisNLP/CrisisLex. The auxiliary feature set is domain-specific and seems to help: on Harvey/Irma it beats LR, SVM, and plain CNN by solid margins (F1 87.2 vs 73.9; accuracy 93.7 vs 88.5), and the AUC gains on CrisisNLP/CrisisLex are consistent. That is a real, reproducible-in-principle result, and the authors are honest that Injured and Sick were discarded after labeling because they were too rare. So the headline 'six classes' is really four classes; the four-class numbers stand.

Soft spots, in order of importance. First, the 'correct priority of a tweet' claim is not evaluated at all. Priority is Eq. 8 with hand-set label weights (1.5/1.5/2/2.5) and a random environmental vector drawn between 0.5 and 2.5. The paper itself says automatic weight determination is open. No ground-truth priority exists, so the scheduling experiments take arbitrary scores as inputs. The stress-test note is right: changing those weights or the random draw could change rescue order, and Table 12 shows a low-priority task waiting 375 minutes, which is itself a red flag for fairness. Second, the scheduling evaluation uses 174 real tweets upsampled to 550 synthetic tasks, plus one 10-task Port Arthur example. The 2-mile grouping depends on NER/Google Maps locations whose accuracy is never checked. Those results are illustrative, not a validation of 'beats all other algorithms.' Third, no code or data is released, so independent checking is limited.

The citation pattern is fine; the paper builds sensibly on Imran, Nguyen, and Yang. For a systems paper, the classification result is worth engaging with; the scheduling contribution needs ground-truth priorities, sensitivity analysis on the weights, and location accuracy before it can be taken seriously. I'd send it to review, but with the expectation that the authors would need to either scope down the claims or substantially strengthen the evaluation.

Referee Report

5 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper proposes an end-to-end pipeline for disaster response from Twitter: a CNN with attention and handcrafted auxiliary features performs multi-label tweet classification; a NER/Google-Maps step extracts locations; a priority score is computed by Eq. (8) from class weights and environmental weights; and three scheduling algorithms (FCFS, priority, multi-task hybrid) are compared. The classification is evaluated on 4,900 manually labeled Hurricane Harvey/Irma tweets and on CrisisNLP/CrisisLex corpora; scheduling is evaluated on an upsampled set of 550 tasks from Hurricane Harvey and on a 10-task Port Arthur example. The paper claims that the classifier outperforms LR, SVM, and CNN baselines and that the multi-task hybrid scheduler achieves the lowest average waiting time.

Significance. Taken at face value, the classifier comparison would be a useful incremental contribution to crisis tweet triage, and the scheduling framework is a plausible demonstration of how priority labels could drive rescue logistics. The paper has real strengths: the cross-corpus robustness check on multiple disaster datasets, the explicit hyperparameter table, and the detailed pseudocode for the scheduling algorithms make the proposal easy to understand and partially reproduce. However, the evaluated system is not the system described in the central claims: two of the six classes are dropped before evaluation, and the priority and scheduling results rest on hand-set weights and a single synthetic scheduling experiment. As a result, the significance of the contribution as stated is substantially lower than claimed.

major comments (5)

[Abstract, Section 3, Section 5.1.2, Table 4] The paper repeatedly frames the model as a six-class classifier, but Section 5.1.2 states that the Injured and Sick labels were discarded because their frequencies were only 0.3% each, and Table 4 reports metrics only for Help, Flood, Water Needed, and DCEW. Since the headline six-class claim is validated only for four classes, the abstract and the contribution list should either describe a four-class model or present a class-balanced evaluation of the two dropped classes.
[Section 4.2, Eq. (8), Section 5.2] The claimed ability to determine the 'correct priority' of a tweet is not evaluated: the label weights w_j are hand-set (Flood 1.5, Water Needed 1.5, DCEW 2, Sick/Injured 2.5), the environmental weights alpha_i are drawn from a random distribution between 0.5 and 2.5, and there is no ground-truth priority label or sensitivity analysis. Because Eq. (8) drives both the scheduling simulation and the Port Arthur example, Tables 8 and 12 demonstrate the behavior of one arbitrary scoring rule rather than a validated priority estimator; the authors' own statement that automatic weight determination remains an open problem further confirms this limitation.
[Section 5.2, Tables 8 and 12] The scheduling evaluation transforms 174 rescue-seeking tweets into 550 tasks by upsampling with resample and linear interpolation, and then reports average waiting times for FCFS, Priority, and Multi-tasks Hybrid without variance, confidence intervals, or repeated random draws. The claim in Section 5.2 that 'Multi-tasks hybrid scheduling beats all other algorithm' is therefore supported only by a single synthetic dataset; at minimum, the authors should report the distribution of waiting times over multiple trials and with different random seeds.
[Section 3.2, Algorithm 2, Section 5.3] Location extraction via Stanford NER and Google Maps API is introduced in Section 3.2 but never evaluated for accuracy. Algorithm 2's grouping of tasks depends on distances within disRadius, and all route distances in Table 12 are derived from these extracted locations; the future-work paragraph in Section 6 even lists 'precise location determination' as open. The paper should quantify the error of the geocoding step or at least bound its effect on the grouped routes and waiting-time results.
[Section 5.1.2, Table 3] The evaluation compares CNN_AAf with a CNN baseline that lacks both the attention layer and the auxiliary features, so the improvement is a combined effect. The abstract and introduction claim that the auxiliary feature map 'dramatically increases' model accuracy, but there is no ablation removing only the auxiliary features or only the attention layer; such an ablation is needed to support the attribution of the gain to the auxiliary features.

minor comments (7)

[Section 5.3, Algorithm 2] The units are inconsistent: Algorithm 2 uses a 2-mile radius, while the Port Arthur description refers to a 'perimeter of 2 square miles'; the radius definition should be reconciled.
[Section 3, Tables 4 and 9] The abbreviation appears as DECW in Section 3 but as DCEW in Tables 4 and 9; standardize the acronym.
[Eq. (6), Section 3.1] The attention formula is incomplete: it does not state how the attention scores e_i,j are normalized or how they are combined with the BLSTM outputs to form the context vector.
[Eq. (7), Section 3.1] Equation (7) uses C[*, i:i+w] without defining C; state explicitly that C is the sentence-level representation matrix.
[Algorithm 2, line 18] Line 18 refers to 'the similar process of algorithm 2' but should refer to the process in Algorithm 1.
[Section 5.3, Table 12] The waiting-time definition in Table 12 differs from Algorithm 1's definition: Table 12 adds route duration to the difference between start time and arrival time, while Algorithm 1 computes currentTime minus arrivalTime. Clarify which definition underlies the averages in Table 8.
[General] The paper does not state whether the labeled tweets, code, or trained models will be made available; a data and code availability statement would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the classification and scheduling claims rest on external benchmarks and openly stated heuristics, not on self-referential reductions.

full rationale

The paper's central classification claim is self-contained: the CNN_AAf model is trained on manually labeled Hurricane Harvey and Irma tweets and evaluated against held-out test data, then compared with Logistic Regression, SVM, CNN, and published results on external CrisisNLP and CrisisLex datasets. No fitted parameter is later renamed as a prediction, and the model is not defined in terms of the scheduling outcomes. The rescue-scheduling part uses Equation 8 as an explicit priority heuristic in which label weights are hand-assigned (Flood 1.5, Water Needed 1.5, DCEW 2, Sick or Injured 2.5) and the environmental vector is drawn from a random distribution between 0.5 and 2.5; the paper itself states that automatic weight determination remains an open problem and that experimental weights were used. Because the priority values are not derived from the scheduler's average waiting time, the claim that Multi-tasks Hybrid scheduling beats the other algorithms is not circular, although it is sensitive to arbitrary weights and lacks ground-truth priority validation. The dependencies cited, including CrisisNLP, CrisisLex, GloVe embeddings, and the 54-minute service-time assumption from Yang et al., are external sources rather than self-citations, and none carries the argument by asserting the paper's own conclusions. The unsupported 'correct priority' claim is a correctness and validation gap, not a definitional reduction, so no circular step can be exhibited from the paper's equations.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on manually labeled ground truth, unvalidated geolocation, hand-set priority weights, and synthetic scheduling data. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced; the priority score formula and scheduler are algorithmic constructs.

free parameters (4)

Priority label weights vector w_j = Flood 1.5, Water Needed 1.5, DCEW 2, Sick/Injured 2.5
Used in Equation 8; authors call them demo weights and say automatic determination remains an open problem (Sections 5.2 and 5.3).
Environmental feature weights alpha_i = Random uniform 0.5 to 2.5 in the main simulation; demo weights in Section 5.3
Added into priority score via Equation 8; no empirical grounding or sensitivity analysis.
Burst-time smoothing factor alpha in Equation 9 = Not optimized; described only as the value that can predict the best burst time
Exponential averaging constant chosen by hand; affects predicted burst times and therefore scheduling outputs.
Grouping radius disRadius = 2 miles
Chosen for multi-task grouping in Algorithm 2; no sensitivity analysis is reported.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The 4,900 manually labeled tweets are accurate ground truth
Labeling process and annotator agreement are not described; all classification metrics depend on this.
domain assumption Tweet locations extracted by Stanford NER plus Google Maps API are accurate enough for 2-mile grouping
No accuracy evaluation is provided; the multi-task scheduler's grouping depends on these locations.
domain assumption Upsampled synthetic tasks preserve the real rescue demand distribution
550 tasks are generated by resampling and interpolation from 174 tweets; waiting-time comparisons assume this is representative.
domain assumption Burst time estimates (54 minutes from Yang et al. or random completion times) are representative
Scheduling output depends on these service-time estimates, which are taken from prior work or generated randomly.
standard math Standard LSTM, CNN, and attention formulations (Equations 1-7) are correct
Background machinery used without proof.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Deep Learning Approach for Tweet Classification and Rescue Scheduling for Effective Disaster Management." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VXUL7ZML

@misc{pith2026190801456,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Deep Learning Approach for Tweet Classification and Rescue Scheduling for Effective Disaster Management},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VXUL7ZML}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01456}
}

read the original abstract

It is a challenging and complex task to acquire information from different regions of a disaster-affected area in a timely fashion. The extensive spread and reach of social media and networks allow people to share information in real-time. However, the processing of social media data and gathering of valuable information require a series of operations such as (1) processing each specific tweet for a text classification, (2) possible location determination of people needing help based on tweets, and (3) priority calculations of rescue tasks based on the classification of tweets. These are three primary challenges in developing an effective rescue scheduling operation using social media data. In this paper, first, we propose a deep learning model combining attention based Bi-directional Long Short-Term Memory (BLSTM) and Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) to classify the tweets under different categories. We use pre-trained crisis word vectors and global vectors for word representation (GLoVe) for capturing semantic meaning from tweets. Next, we perform feature engineering to create an auxiliary feature map which dramatically increases the model accuracy. In our experiments using real data sets from Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, it is observed that our proposed approach performs better compared to other classification methods based on Precision, Recall, F1-score, and Accuracy, and is highly effective to determine the correct priority of a tweet. Furthermore, to evaluate the effectiveness and robustness of the proposed classification model a merged dataset comprises of 4 different datasets from CrisisNLP and another 15 different disasters data from CrisisLex are used. Finally, we develop an adaptive multitask hybrid scheduling algorithm considering resource constraints to perform an effective rescue scheduling operation considering different rescue priorities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.01456 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** A successful rescue during Hurricane Irma [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The pre-processing step involves discarding non-English [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: System architecture of the proposed model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: The experimental results can be summarized as follows. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Distribution of rescue seeking tweets per hour [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: The geographical positions of the victims (Red [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Route of Rescue Unit 1 by rescue order The routes of the rescue missions assigned to rescue unit 1 presented in table 12 are illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

[1]

[n. d.]. Fact Sheet: Not all Disaster Preparedness Plans Are the Same. ([n. d.]). https://www.fema.gov/news-release/2019/05/17/ fact-sheet-not-all-disaster-preparedness-plans-are-same

work page 2019
[2]

[n. d.]. Food and Water: Preparing for a Disaster | Natural Disasters and Severe Weather | CDC. ([n. d.]). https://www.cdc.gov/disasters/foodwater/prepare.html

work page
[3]

[n. d.]. IS-0368 - Including People With Disabilities and Others With Access and Functional Needs in Disaster Operations. ([n. d.]). https://emilms.fema.gov/ IS0368/DIS01summary.htm

work page
[4]

[n. d.]. Vulnerable Populations - National Center for Disaster Preparedness. ([n. d.]). https://ncdp.columbia.edu/research/vulnerable-populations/

work page
[5]

Vulnerable groups

2012. Vulnerable groups. (Aug 2012). https://www.who.int/environmental_ health_emergencies/vulnerable_groups/en/

work page 2012
[6]

David E Alexander. 2014. Social media in disaster risk reduction and crisis management. Science and engineering ethics 20, 3 (2014), 717–733

work page 2014
[7]

Mehdi Allahyari, Seyedamin Pouriyeh, Mehdi Assefi, Saied Safaei, Elizabeth D Trippe, Juan B Gutierrez, and Krys Kochut. 2017. A brief survey of text mining: Classification, clustering and extraction techniques. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.02919 (2017)

arXiv 2017
[8]

ArcGIS. 2019. ArcGIS for Developers. (mar 2019). Retrieved March 7, 2019 from https://developers.arcgis.com/javascript/

work page 2019

Show all 41 references

[9]

Drake Baer. 2012. As Sandy became# Sandy, emergency services got social. Fast Company 9 (2012)

2012
[10]

Alexis Conneau, Holger Schwenk, Loïc Barrault, and Yann Lecun. 2016. Very deep convolutional networks for text classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.01781 (2016)

2016 arXiv
[11]

Jenny Rose Finkel, Trond Grenager, and Christopher Manning. 2005. Incorporat- ing non-local information into information extraction systems by gibbs sampling. In Proceedings of the 43rd annual meeting on association for computational linguis- tics. Association for Computationa...

2005
[12]

2011.Harnessing the crowdsourcing power of social media for disaster relief

Huiji Gao, Geoffrey Barbier, Rebecca Goolsby, and Daniel Zeng. 2011.Harnessing the crowdsourcing power of social media for disaster relief . Technical Report. Arizona State Univ Tempe

2011
[13]

Kiran Garimella, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales, Aristides Gionis, and Michael Mathioudakis. 2018. Quantifying controversy on social media. ACM Transactions on Social Computing 1, 1 (2018), 3

2018
[14]

Alex Graves, Abdel-rahman Mohamed, and Geoffrey Hinton. 2013. Speech recognition with deep recurrent neural networks. In 2013 IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing . IEEE, 6645–6649

2013
[15]

Eui-Hong Sam Han, George Karypis, and Vipin Kumar. 2001. Text categorization using weight adjusted k-nearest neighbor classification. In Pacific-asia conference on knowledge discovery and data mining . Springer, 53–65

2001
[16]

Bin Hu, Fang Pan, and Lei Wang. 2019. A scheduling algorithm for medical emergency rescue aircraft trajectory based on hybrid estimation and intent inference. Journal of Combinatorial Optimization 37, 1 (2019), 40–61

2019
[17]

Wen-Hung Huang and Jian-Jia Chen. 2016. Self-suspension real-time tasks under fixed-relative-deadline fixed-priority scheduling. In Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (DATE), 2016 . IEEE, 1078–1083

2016
[18]

Muhammad Imran, Prasenjit Mitra, and Carlos Castillo. 2016. Twitter as a lifeline: Human-annotated twitter corpora for NLP of crisis-related messages. arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.05894 (2016)

2016 arXiv
[19]

Akshi Kumar, Saurabh Raj Sangwan, Anshika Arora, Anand Nayyar, Mohamed Abdel-Basset, et al. 2019. Sarcasm Detection Using Soft Attention-Based Bidirec- tional Long Short-Term Memory Model With Convolution Network. IEEE Access 7 (2019), 23319–23328

2019
[20]

Mirella Lapata, Phil Blunsom, and Alexander Koller. 2017. Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Volume 1, Long Papers. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Co...

2017
[21]

Joseph Y-T Leung and Jennifer Whitehead. 1982. On the complexity of fixed- priority scheduling of periodic, real-time tasks.Performance evaluation 2, 4 (1982), 237–250

1982
[22]

Bruce R Lindsay. 2011. Social media and disasters: Current uses, future options, and policy considerations. (2011)

2011
[23]

Edward Loper and Steven Bird. 2002. NLTK: the natural language toolkit. arXiv preprint cs/0205028 (2002)

2002 arXiv
[24]

Minh-Thang Luong, Hieu Pham, and Christopher D Manning. 2015. Effec- tive approaches to attention-based neural machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1508.04025 (2015)

2015 arXiv
[25]

W McKinney. 2014. Pandas, python data analysis library. 2015. Reference Source (2014)

2014
[26]

Dat Tien Nguyen, Kamela Ali Al Mannai, Shafiq Joty, Hassan Sajjad, Muham- mad Imran, and Prasenjit Mitra. 2016. Rapid classification of crisis-related data on social networks using convolutional neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.03902 (2016)

2016 arXiv
[27]

Long Nguyen, Zhou Yang, Jiazhen Zhu, Jia Li, and Fang Jin. 2018. Coordinating Disaster Emergency Response with Heuristic Reinforcement Learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.05010 (2018)

2018 arXiv
[28]

testimony

Ory Okolloh. 2009. Ushahidi, or "testimony": Web 2.0 tools for crowdsourcing crisis information. Participatory learning and action 59, 1 (2009), 65–70

2009
[29]

Alexandra Olteanu, Sarah Vieweg, and Carlos Castillo. 2015. What to expect when the unexpected happens: Social media communications across crises. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing. ACM, 994–1009

2015
[30]

Mina Park, Yao Sun, and Margaret L McLaughlin. 2017. Social media propagation of content promoting risky health behavior.Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 20, 5 (2017), 278–285

2017
[31]

Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher Manning. 2014. Glove: Global vectors for word representation. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP) . 1532–1543

2014
[32]

Irina Rish et al. 2001. An empirical study of the naive Bayes classifier. In IJCAI 2001 workshop on empirical methods in artificial intelligence , Vol. 3. IBM New York, 41–46

2001
[33]

Uwe Schwiegeishohn and Ramin Yahyapour. 1998. Improving first-come-first- serve job scheduling by gang scheduling. InWorkshop on Job Scheduling Strategies for Parallel Processing. Springer, 180–198

1998
[34]

Irina Shklovski, Moira Burke, Sara Kiesler, and Robert Kraut. 2010. Technology adoption and use in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.american Behavioral scientist 53, 8 (2010), 1228–1246

2010
[35]

Kate Starbird and Leysia Palen. 2010. Pass it on?: Retweeting in mass emergency . International Community on Information Systems for Crisis Response and âĂę

2010
[36]

Shuohang Wang and Jing Jiang. 2015. Learning natural language inference with LSTM. arXiv preprint arXiv:1512.08849 (2015)

2015 arXiv
[37]

Xingyou Wang, Weijie Jiang, and Zhiyong Luo. 2016. Combination of convo- lutional and recurrent neural network for sentiment analysis of short texts. In Proceedings of COLING 2016, the 26th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers. 2428–2437

2016
[38]

Felix Wex, Guido Schryen, Stefan Feuerriegel, and Dirk Neumann. 2014. Emer- gency response in natural disaster management: Allocation and scheduling of rescue units. European Journal of Operational Research 235, 3 (2014), 697–708

2014
[39]

Zhou Yang, Long Hoang Nguyen, Joshua Stuve, Guofeng Cao, and Fang Jin
[40]

Jie Yin, Sarvnaz Karimi, Andrew Lampert, Mark Cameron, Bella Robinson, and Robert Power. 2015. Using social media to enhance emergency situation aware- ness. In Twenty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence

2015
[2017]

In Big Data (Big Data), 2017 IEEE International Conference on

Harvey flooding rescue in social media. In Big Data (Big Data), 2017 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 2177–2185

2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

[n. d.]. Fact Sheet: Not all Disaster Preparedness Plans Are the Same. ([n. d.]). https://www.fema.gov/news-release/2019/05/17/ fact-sheet-not-all-disaster-preparedness-plans-are-same

work page 2019

[2] [2]

[n. d.]. Food and Water: Preparing for a Disaster | Natural Disasters and Severe Weather | CDC. ([n. d.]). https://www.cdc.gov/disasters/foodwater/prepare.html

work page

[3] [3]

[n. d.]. IS-0368 - Including People With Disabilities and Others With Access and Functional Needs in Disaster Operations. ([n. d.]). https://emilms.fema.gov/ IS0368/DIS01summary.htm

work page

[4] [4]

[n. d.]. Vulnerable Populations - National Center for Disaster Preparedness. ([n. d.]). https://ncdp.columbia.edu/research/vulnerable-populations/

work page

[5] [5]

Vulnerable groups

2012. Vulnerable groups. (Aug 2012). https://www.who.int/environmental_ health_emergencies/vulnerable_groups/en/

work page 2012

[6] [6]

David E Alexander. 2014. Social media in disaster risk reduction and crisis management. Science and engineering ethics 20, 3 (2014), 717–733

work page 2014

[7] [7]

Mehdi Allahyari, Seyedamin Pouriyeh, Mehdi Assefi, Saied Safaei, Elizabeth D Trippe, Juan B Gutierrez, and Krys Kochut. 2017. A brief survey of text mining: Classification, clustering and extraction techniques. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.02919 (2017)

arXiv 2017

[8] [8]

ArcGIS. 2019. ArcGIS for Developers. (mar 2019). Retrieved March 7, 2019 from https://developers.arcgis.com/javascript/

work page 2019