pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.16285 · v1 · pith:VDGEAWDXnew · submitted 2026-04-12 · 💻 cs.HC · cs.CY

Making Sense of the Weather, Together: Collaborative Sensemaking in Severe Weather Livestreams

Julie A. Vera , Mark Zachry , David W. McDonald This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 00:55 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC cs.CY
keywords collaborative sensemakingsevere weatherlivestreamsweatherfluencerscrisis communicationYouTubeplatform studiescrisis informatics
0
0 comments X

The pith

Weatherfluencers turn YouTube livestreams into real-time collaborative sensemaking channels for severe weather.

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

The paper examines how weatherfluencers and their audiences jointly interpret severe weather in real time on YouTube. It identifies three practices that blend multiple data sources, connect different time periods, and repurpose entertainment features for safety information. A sympathetic reader would care because these informal channels may help bridge gaps between official warnings and what the public needs to know during fast-moving storms. The work suggests that such collaboration changes how crisis communication works by drawing on distributed audience knowledge instead of relying only on top-down alerts.

Core claim

Through critical incident analysis of 13 Particularly Dangerous Situation storm warnings across three prominent weatherfluencers, we identify three key practices: multi-source information triangulation, temporal bridging techniques, and platform-specific adaptations that transform entertainment interfaces into safety-critical communication channels. Our analysis shows how these practices challenge existing models of crisis communication by integrating distributed expertise, collapsing temporal frames, and reconfiguring platform affordances.

What carries the argument

Three practices—multi-source information triangulation, temporal bridging techniques, and platform-specific adaptations—carry the argument by turning distributed audience input and platform features into tools for joint interpretation of severe weather.

If this is right

  • Informal communicators can mediate between official alerts and public understanding during crises.
  • Visual and multimodal formats provide advantages over text-only crisis messages.
  • Entertainment platforms can be adapted to support safety-critical real-time communication.
  • Integrating audience expertise improves sensemaking when official sources are limited or delayed.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same practices might appear in livestreams about other fast-changing events such as wildfires or health outbreaks.
  • Future checks could compare the accuracy of information in these streams against official forecasts.
  • Platform companies might add features that make real-time audience input easier during emergencies.
  • Faster sense-making through collapsed time frames could shorten the gap between warning and protective action.

Load-bearing premise

The 13 selected storm warnings from three weatherfluencers form a sufficient and representative basis for identifying general patterns of collaborative sensemaking.

What would settle it

Analysis of additional livestreams from other creators or events that shows no evidence of information triangulation, temporal bridging, or active audience contributions would indicate these practices are not general.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.16285 by David W. McDonald, Julie A. Vera, Mark Zachry.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Multi-step data collection and analysis pipeline [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Critical Incident Sampling and PDS Watch/Warning Structure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Example of a livestream with YouTube chat interface [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example of a livestream with illustration-assisted explanations of storm structures [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

This paper examines collaborative sensemaking during severe weather events through the emerging phenomenon of "weatherfluencers" or content creators who livestream meteorological interpretation on platforms like YouTube. Drawing from sensemaking theory, crisis informatics, and platform studies, we analyze how these creators navigate the sociotechnical dynamics of interpreting severe weather in real time with distributed audiences. Through critical incident analysis of 13 Particularly Dangerous Situation (PDS) storm warnings across three prominent weatherfluencers, we identify three key practices: multi-source information triangulation, temporal bridging techniques, and platform-specific adaptations that transform entertainment interfaces into safety-critical communication channels. Our analysis shows how these practices challenge existing models of crisis communication by integrating distributed expertise, collapsing temporal frames, and reconfiguring platform affordances. This research contributes to understanding how informal emergency communicators mediate between institutional alerting systems and public needs, and how visual, multimodal crisis communication differs from text-centered approaches.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript examines collaborative sensemaking during severe weather events via weatherfluencers who livestream meteorological interpretation on YouTube. Drawing on sensemaking theory, crisis informatics, and platform studies, the authors conduct a critical incident analysis of 13 Particularly Dangerous Situation (PDS) storm warnings from three prominent creators. They identify three practices—multi-source information triangulation, temporal bridging techniques, and platform-specific adaptations—that transform entertainment interfaces into safety-critical channels. The analysis argues these practices challenge existing crisis communication models by integrating distributed expertise, collapsing temporal frames, and reconfiguring platform affordances, while positioning informal communicators as mediators between institutional alerts and public needs.

Significance. If the identified practices are shown to be robust and generalizable, the work could meaningfully extend crisis informatics and HCI research on multimodal, distributed emergency communication. It highlights how informal, real-time creators on social platforms can bridge gaps in official systems, offering potential implications for both theory (e.g., reconfigured affordances and temporal dynamics) and practice (e.g., integrating livestreams into alerting strategies). The empirical focus on visual, audience-involved sensemaking provides a useful counterpoint to text-centered models.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and Methods] Abstract and Methods (critical incident analysis description): The claim that the three practices challenge existing models by integrating distributed expertise, collapsing temporal frames, and reconfiguring affordances depends on the 13 PDS warnings from three prominent weatherfluencers providing a sufficient and representative basis for general patterns. The selection of only high-profile creators and extreme PDS events risks amplifying observable practices while under-sampling routine or low-visibility livestreams; without explicit justification for case selection criteria, saturation, or why these cases represent broader collaborative sensemaking dynamics, the interpretive leap to model-challenging implications lacks a secure empirical anchor.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract could more explicitly delineate how the observed practices differ from prior crisis communication models (e.g., specific contrasts with established frameworks in crisis informatics) to sharpen the contribution statement.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address the major comment regarding case selection and the empirical basis for our claims below, with revisions to improve clarity and transparency.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and Methods] Abstract and Methods (critical incident analysis description): The claim that the three practices challenge existing models by integrating distributed expertise, collapsing temporal frames, and reconfiguring affordances depends on the 13 PDS warnings from three prominent weatherfluencers providing a sufficient and representative basis for general patterns. The selection of only high-profile creators and extreme PDS events risks amplifying observable practices while under-sampling routine or low-visibility livestreams; without explicit justification for case selection criteria, saturation, or why these cases represent broader collaborative sensemaking dynamics, the interpretive leap to model-challenging implications lacks a secure empirical anchor.

    Authors: We appreciate this point and agree that the Methods section would benefit from more explicit justification of our sampling approach. Our study uses critical incident analysis to examine high-stakes severe weather events, a method that prioritizes depth in theoretically salient cases rather than broad representativeness. The 13 PDS warnings were deliberately selected as the most extreme alerts, where collaborative sensemaking is most critical for public safety and where livestreams demonstrably supplement official channels. The three prominent creators were chosen because they consistently cover these events with large, engaged audiences, enabling observation of the identified practices. We have revised the Methods to add a paragraph detailing case selection criteria, including the rationale for focusing on PDS events and high-visibility creators to capture pronounced instances of the practices. As this is not a grounded theory study, saturation was not the goal; instead, we sought consistent patterns across multiple incidents. We have also added a limitations paragraph acknowledging that the sample does not capture routine or low-visibility livestreams and that claims are scoped to these critical cases rather than all weather communication. This focused approach provides a secure anchor for identifying how the practices challenge existing models in safety-critical contexts. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: claims grounded in external livestream observations

full rationale

The paper's central claims derive from critical incident analysis of 13 external PDS storm warnings observed on YouTube livestreams by three weatherfluencers. The three identified practices (multi-source triangulation, temporal bridging, platform adaptations) are presented as emerging directly from that data and then interpreted as challenging prior crisis communication models. No equations, fitted parameters, self-definitional constructs, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the provided text; the derivation chain remains anchored in independent external sources rather than reducing to the paper's own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the applicability of sensemaking theory and crisis informatics frameworks to livestream data, plus the assumption that critical incident analysis can reliably surface generalizable practices from a small set of cases. No free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Sensemaking theory applies to real-time distributed audience interactions during livestreamed weather events
    The paper draws from sensemaking theory to frame the analysis of collaborative practices in the abstract.
  • domain assumption Critical incident analysis of 13 PDS warnings is sufficient to identify key practices in this domain
    The abstract states this method was used to derive the three practices.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5692 in / 1326 out tokens · 42760 ms · 2026-05-21T00:55:44.275773+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    Through critical incident analysis of 13 Particularly Dangerous Situation (PDS) storm warnings across three prominent weatherfluencers, we identify three key practices: multi-source information triangulation, temporal bridging techniques, and platform-specific adaptations

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 91 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    networked publics

    Crystal Abidin. 2021. From “networked publics” to “refracted publics”: A companion framework for researching “below the radar” studies.Social Media+ Society7, 1 (2021), 2056305120984458

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Peter Bell. 2025. Public Trust in Government: 1958-2025. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/12/04/public- trust-in-government-1958-2025/

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Brittany Bloodhart, Edward Maibach, Teresa Myers, and Xiaoquan Zhao. 2015. Local Climate Experts: The Influence of Local TV Weather Information on Climate Change Perceptions.PLOS ONE10, 11 (Nov. 2015), e0141526. https: //doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0141526 Publisher: Public Library of Science

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0141526 2015

  4. [4]

    Axel Bruns and Jean Burgess. 2014. Crisis communication in natural disasters: The Queensland floods and Christchurch earthquakes. , 373–384 pages. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/66329/

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    Taina Bucher, Anne Helmond, et al. 2018. The affordances of social media platforms.The SAGE handbook of social media1, 1 (2018), 233–253

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Deborah Bunker, Milad Mirbabaie, and Stefan Stieglitz. 2020. Convergence Behaviour of Bystanders: An Analysis of 2016 Munich Shooting Twitter Crisis Communication. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2004.08573 arXiv:2004.08573 [cs]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2004.08573 2020

  7. [7]

    Burgeno and Susan L

    Jessica N. Burgeno and Susan L. Joslyn. 2020. The Impact of Weather Forecast Inconsistency on User Trust.Weather, Climate, and Society12 (Aug. 2020), 679–694. Issue 4. https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-19-0074.1 Section: Weather, Climate, and Society

    work page doi:10.1175/wcas-d-19-0074.1 2020

  8. [8]

    Burgeno and Susan L

    Jessica N. Burgeno and Susan L. Joslyn. 2023. The Impact of Forecast Inconsistency and Probabilistic Forecasts on Users’ Trust and Decision-Making.Weather, Climate, and Society15 (Aug. 2023), 693–709. Issue 3. https: //doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0064.1 Section: Weather, Climate, and Society

    work page doi:10.1175/wcas-d-22-0064.1 2023

  9. [9]

    Lee D Butterfield, William A Borgen, Norman E Amundson, and Asa-Sophia T Maglio. 2005. Fifty years of the critical incident technique: 1954-2004 and beyond.Qualitative research5, 4 (2005), 475–497

    work page 2005

  10. [10]

    NOAA / National Weather Service Storm Prediction Center. 2025. Storm Prediction Center Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ). https://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/#2.7

    work page 2025

  11. [11]

    Mark Coddington. 2015. Clarifying journalism’s quantitative turn: A typology for evaluating data journalism, compu- tational journalism, and computer-assisted reporting.Digital journalism3, 3 (2015), 331–348

    work page 2015

  12. [12]

    Kate Crawford and Megan Finn. 2015. The limits of crisis data: analytical and ethical challenges of using social and mobile data to understand disasters.GeoJournal80 (2015), 491–502

    work page 2015

  13. [13]

    Dharma Dailey and Kate Starbird. 2017. Social Media Seamsters: Stitching Platforms & Audiences into Local Crisis Infrastructure. InProceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1277–1289. https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181. 2998290

    work page doi:10.1145/2998181 2017

  14. [14]

    Scott Dance. 2025. National Weather Service buyouts will leave gaps as storm season ramps up. https://www. washingtonpost.com/weather/2025/04/16/national-weather-service-buyouts-staff-shortages-trump-administration/

    work page 2025

  15. [15]

    Hanne De Jaegher and Ezequiel Di Paolo. 2007. Participatory sense-making.Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 6, 4 (Dec. 2007), 485–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-007-9076-9 , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: May 2026. Making Sense of the Weather, Together: Collaborative Sensemaking in Severe Weather Livestreams 25

    work page doi:10.1007/s11097-007-9076-9 2007

  16. [16]

    Julie L Demuth, Rebecca E Morss, Betty Hearn Morrow, and Jeffrey K Lazo. 2012. Creation and communication of hurricane risk information.Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society93, 8 (2012), 1133–1145

    work page 2012

  17. [17]

    Audubon Dougherty. 2011. Live-streaming mobile video: production as civic engagement. InProceedings of the 13th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (MobileHCI ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 425–434. https://doi.org/10.1145/2037373.2037437

    work page doi:10.1145/2037373.2037437 2011

  18. [18]

    Paul Dourish. 2003. The appropriation of interactive technologies: Some lessons from placeless documents.Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)12 (2003), 465–490

    work page 2003

  19. [19]

    Robert Drost, Mark Casteel, Julie Libarkin, Stephen Thomas, and Matt Meister. 2016. Severe weather warning communication: Factors impacting audience attention and retention of information during tornado warnings.Weather, Climate, and Society8, 4 (2016), 361–372

    work page 2016

  20. [20]

    1969.Organized Behavior in Disaster: Analysis and Conceptualization

    Russell Rowe Dynes. 1969.Organized Behavior in Disaster: Analysis and Conceptualization. Disaster Research Center, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA. Google-Books-ID: IeT48KFQkVMC

    work page 1969

  21. [21]

    Sandra K Evans, Katy E Pearce, Jessica Vitak, and Jeffrey W Treem. 2017. Explicating affordances: A conceptual framework for understanding affordances in communication research.Journal of computer-mediated communication 22, 1 (2017), 35–52

    work page 2017

  22. [22]

    Fischer, Stuart Reeves, Tom Rodden, Steve Reece, Sarvapali D

    Joel E. Fischer, Stuart Reeves, Tom Rodden, Steve Reece, Sarvapali D. Ramchurn, and David Jones. 2015. Building a Birds Eye View: Collaborative Work in Disaster Response. InProceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 4103–4112. https://doi.org/10.114...

    work page doi:10.1145/2702123.2702313 2015

  23. [23]

    John C Flanagan. 1954. The critical incident technique.Psychological bulletin51, 4 (1954), 327

    work page 1954

  24. [24]

    Flanagin and Miriam J

    Andrew J. Flanagin and Miriam J. Metzger. 2007. The role of site features, user attributes, and information verification behaviors on the perceived credibility of web-based information.New Media & Society9, 2 (April 2007), 319–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444807075015 Publisher: SAGE Publications

    work page doi:10.1177/1461444807075015 2007

  25. [25]

    B. J. Fogg and Hsiang Tseng. 1999. The elements of computer credibility. InProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’99). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 80–87. https://doi.org/10.1145/302979.303001

    work page doi:10.1145/302979.303001 1999

  26. [26]

    Stuart Geiger and David Ribes

    R. Stuart Geiger and David Ribes. 2011. Trace Ethnography: Following Coordination through Documentary Practices. In2011 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. HICSS, Honolulu, HI, USA, 1–10. https://doi.org/10. 1109/HICSS.2011.455 ISSN: 1530-1605

    work page 2011

  27. [27]

    Robert Gephart, Çağrı Topal, and Zhen Zhang. 2010. Future-oriented sensemaking: Temporalities and institutional legitimation. InProcess sensemaking and organizing. Oxford, Oxford, UK

    work page 2010

  28. [28]

    Tarleton Gillespie. 2010. The politics of ‘platforms’.New media & society12, 3 (2010), 347–364

    work page 2010

  29. [29]

    Charles Goodwin. 2000. Action and embodiment within situated human interaction.Journal of Pragmatics32, 10 (Sept. 2000), 1489–1522. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00096-X

    work page doi:10.1016/s0378-2166(99)00096-x 2000

  30. [30]

    Pine, and Yunan Chen

    Xinning Gui, Yubo Kou, Kathleen H. Pine, and Yunan Chen. 2017. Managing Uncertainty: Using Social Media for Risk Assessment during a Public Health Crisis. InProceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 4520–4533. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025891

    work page doi:10.1145/3025453.3025891 2017

  31. [31]

    Hamilton, Oliver Garretson, and Andruid Kerne

    William A. Hamilton, Oliver Garretson, and Andruid Kerne. 2014. Streaming on twitch: fostering participatory communities of play within live mixed media. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1315–1324. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 2556288.2557048

    work page arXiv 2014

  32. [32]

    2013.Weather on the Air: A History of Broadcast Meteorology

    Robert Henson. 2013.Weather on the Air: A History of Broadcast Meteorology. Springer Science & Business Media, Boston, MA, USA. Google-Books-ID: 5W0_AAAAQBAJ

    work page 2013

  33. [33]

    James Hollan, Edwin Hutchins, and David Kirsh. 2000. Distributed cognition: toward a new foundation for human- computer interaction research.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI)7, 2 (2000), 174–196

    work page 2000

  34. [34]

    Amanda Lee Hughes and Andrea H Tapia. 2015. Social media in crisis: When professional responders meet digital volunteers.Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management12, 3 (2015), 679–706

    work page 2015

  35. [35]

    Applied High Energy QCD

    Edward Hurcombe. 2024. Conceptualising the “Newsfluencer”: Intersecting Trajectories in Online Content Creation and Platformatised Journalism.Digital Journalism0, 0 (2024), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2024.2397088 Publisher: Routledge _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2024.2397088

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1080/21670811.2024.2397088 2024

  36. [36]

    1995.Cognition in the Wild

    Edwin Hutchins. 1995.Cognition in the Wild. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA. Google-Books-ID: CGIaNc3F1MgC

    work page 1995

  37. [37]

    Sarah Kaplan and Wanda J Orlikowski. 2013. Temporal work in strategy making.Organization science24, 4 (2013), 965–995

    work page 2013

  38. [38]

    Marc-André Kaufhold. 2024. Exploring the evolving landscape of human-centred crisis informatics: current challenges and future trends.i-com23, 2 (2024), 155–163. , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: May 2026. 26 Vera, Mark Zachry, and David W. McDonald

    work page 2024

  39. [39]

    Donia Khalfallah and Veronika Keller. 2025. Authenticity, ethics, and transparency in virtual influencer marketing: A cross-cultural analysis of consumer trust and engagement: A systematic literature review.Acta Psychologica260 (Oct. 2025), 105573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105573

    work page doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105573 2025

  40. [40]

    Robinson

    Alex Leavitt and John J. Robinson. 2017. The Role of Information Visibility in Network Gatekeeping: Information Aggregation on Reddit during Crisis Events. InProceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1246–1261. https://doi.org/10.11...

    work page doi:10.1145/2998181.2998299 2017

  41. [41]

    Seth C Lewis and Logan Molyneux. 2018. A decade of research on social media and journalism: Assumptions, blind spots, and a way forward.Media and communication6, 4 (2018), 11–23

    work page 2018

  42. [42]

    Seth C Lewis and Oscar Westlund. 2015. Actors, actants, audiences, and activities in cross-media news work: A matrix and a research agenda.Digital journalism3, 1 (2015), 19–37

    work page 2015

  43. [43]

    2017.Digital countercultures and the struggle for community

    Jessa Lingel. 2017.Digital countercultures and the struggle for community. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA

    work page 2017

  44. [44]

    Brooke Fisher Liu, Logen Bartz, and Noreen Duke. 2016. Communicating crisis uncertainty: A review of the knowledge gaps.Public relations review42, 3 (2016), 479–487

    work page 2016

  45. [45]

    Sophia B Liu, Leysia Palen, Jeannette Sutton, Amanda L Hughes, and Sarah Vieweg. 2008. In Search of the Bigger Picture: The Emergent Role of On-Line Photo Sharing in Times of Disaster

    work page 2008

  46. [46]

    Losee and Susan Joslyn

    Joy E. Losee and Susan Joslyn. 2018. The need to trust: How features of the forecasted weather influence forecast trust. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction30 (Sept. 2018), 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.02.032

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.02.032 2018

  47. [47]

    Sally Maitlis and Scott Sonenshein. 2010. Sensemaking in crisis and change: Inspiration and insights from Weick (1988).Journal of management studies47, 3 (2010), 551–580

    work page 2010

  48. [48]

    Ann Majchrzak, Sirkka L Jarvenpaa, and Andrea B Hollingshead. 2007. Coordinating expertise among emergent groups responding to disasters.Organization science18, 1 (2007), 147–161

    work page 2007

  49. [49]

    Miriam J. Metzger. 2007. Making sense of credibility on the Web: Models for evaluating online information and recom- mendations for future research.Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology58, 13 (2007), 2078–2091. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20672 _eprint: https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/asi.20672

    work page doi:10.1002/asi.20672 2007

  50. [50]

    D. S. Mileti and J. H. Sorensen. 1990.Communication of emergency public warnings: A social science perspective and state- of-the-art assessment. Technical Report ORNL-6609. Oak Ridge National Lab., TN (USA). https://doi.org/10.2172/6137387

    work page doi:10.2172/6137387 1990

  51. [51]

    Milad Mirbabaie, Deborah Bunker, Stefan Stieglitz, Julian Marx, and Christian Ehnis. 2020. Social media in times of crisis: Learning from Hurricane Harvey for the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic response.Journal of Information Technology35, 3 (2020), 195–213

    work page 2020

  52. [52]

    Dhiraj Murthy and Alexander J Gross. 2017. Social media processes in disasters: Implications of emergent technology use.Social science research63 (2017), 356–370

    work page 2017

  53. [53]

    Donald A Norman. 1999. Affordance, conventions, and design.interactions6, 3 (1999), 38–43

    work page 1999

  54. [54]

    Adam Kemp Adam Kemp Adam Kemp is a Communities Correspondent for the PBS NewsHour based in Oklahoma

    work page

  55. [55]

    https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/as- noaa-braces-for-more-cuts-scientists-say-public-safety-is-at-risk Section: Nation

    As NOAA braces for more cuts, scientists say public safety is at risk. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/as- noaa-braces-for-more-cuts-scientists-say-public-safety-is-at-risk Section: Nation

    work page

  56. [56]

    Leysia Palen and Kenneth M Anderson. 2016. Crisis informatics—New data for extraordinary times.Science353, 6296 (2016), 224–225

    work page 2016

  57. [57]

    Leysia Palen and Sophia B. Liu. 2007. Citizen communications in crisis: anticipating a future of ICT-supported public participation. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’07). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 727–736. https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240736

    work page doi:10.1145/1240624.1240736 2007

  58. [58]

    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 Review27, 4 (2009), 467–480

    work page 2009

  59. [59]

    Leysia Palen, Sarah Vieweg, Jeannette Sutton, Sophia B Liu, and Amanda Hughes. 2007. Crisis informatics: Studying crisis in a networked world. InProceedings of the third international conference on E-Social Science. Third International Conference on e-Social Science, Ann Arbor, MI, 7–9

    work page 2007

  60. [60]

    Volkmar Pipek and Volker Wulf. 2009. Infrastructuring: Toward an Integrated Perspective on the Design and Use of Information Technology.Journal of the Association for Information Systems10, 5 (May 2009), 447–473,. https: //doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00195

    work page doi:10.17705/1jais.00195 2009

  61. [61]

    Madhu C Reddy, Paul Dourish, and Wanda Pratt. 2006. Temporality in medical work: Time also matters.Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)15 (2006), 29–53

    work page 2006

  62. [62]

    Reddy, Paul Dourish, and Wanda Pratt

    Madhu C. Reddy, Paul Dourish, and Wanda Pratt. 2006. Temporality in Medical Work: Time also Matters.Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)15, 1 (Feb. 2006), 29–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-005-9010-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s10606-005-9010-z 2006

  63. [63]

    Christian Reuter and Marc-André Kaufhold. 2018. Fifteen years of social media in emergencies: a retrospective review and future directions for crisis informatics.Journal of contingencies and crisis management26, 1 (2018), 41–57. , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: May 2026. Making Sense of the Weather, Together: Collaborative Sensemaking in Sever...

    work page 2018

  64. [64]

    Christian Reuter, Alexandra Marx, and Volkmar Pipek. 2011. Social software as an infrastructure for crisis management- A case study about current practice and potential usage

    work page 2011

  65. [65]

    Ripberger, Carol L

    Joseph T. Ripberger, Carol L. Silva, Hank C. Jenkins-Smith, Deven E. Carlson, Mark James, and Kerry G. Herron. 2015. False Alarms and Missed Events: The Impact and Origins of Perceived Inaccuracy in Tor- nado Warning Systems.Risk Analysis35, 1 (2015), 44–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12262 _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/risa.12262

    work page doi:10.1111/risa.12262 2015

  66. [66]

    Joseph Seering and Sanjay R. Kairam. 2022. Who Moderates on Twitch and What Do They Do? Quantifying Practices in Community Moderation on Twitch.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.7, GROUP, Article 18 (Dec. 2022), 18 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3567568

    work page doi:10.1145/3567568 2022

  67. [67]

    Kathleen Sherman-Morris. 2013. The public response to hazardous weather events: 25 years of research.Geography Compass7, 10 (2013), 669–685

    work page 2013

  68. [68]

    Poe, Christopher Nunley, and John A

    Kathleen Sherman-Morris, Philip S. Poe, Christopher Nunley, and John A. Morris. 2020. Perceived Risk, Protective Actions and the Parasocial Relationship With the Local Weathercaster: A Case Study of Hurricane Irma.Southeastern Geographer60, 1 (March 2020), 23–48. https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&sw=w&issn=0038366X&v=2.1&it=r&id= GALE%7CA617286848&sid=go...

    work page 2020

  69. [69]

    Singer, A

    Jane B. Singer, A. Hermida, David Domingo, T. Quandt, A. Heinonen, Steve Paulussen, Z. Reich, and M. Vujnovic. 2011. Participatory Journalism in Online Newspapers: Guarding the Internet’s Open Gates. http://hdl.handle.net/2013/ Publisher: Routledge

    work page 2011

  70. [70]

    American Meteorologial Society. 2025. Certified Digital Meteorologist Program (CDM). https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/ education-careers/careers/ams-professional-certification-programs/certified-digital-meteorologist-program-cdm/

    work page 2025

  71. [71]

    Susan Leigh Star. 2002. Infrastructure and ethnographic practice: Working on the fringes.Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems14 (2002), 107–122

    work page 2002

  72. [72]

    Susan Leigh Star and Karen Ruhleder. 1994. Steps towards an ecology of infrastructure: complex problems in design and access for large-scale collaborative systems. InProceedings of the 1994 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work (CSCW ’94). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 253–264. https: //doi.org/10.1145/192844.193021

    work page doi:10.1145/192844.193021 1994

  73. [73]

    Kate Starbird, Jim Maddock, Mania Orand, Peg Achterman, and Robert M. Mason. 2014. Rumors, False Flags, and Digital Vigilantes: Misinformation on Twitter after the 2013 Boston Marathon Bombing.iConference 2014 Proceedings 0, 0 (March 2014), 654–662. https://doi.org/10.9776/14308 Publisher: iSchools

    work page doi:10.9776/14308 2014

  74. [74]

    Voluntweeters

    Kate Starbird and Leysia Palen. 2011. "Voluntweeters": self-organizing by digital volunteers in times of crisis. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1071–1080. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979102

    work page doi:10.1145/1978942.1979102 2011

  75. [75]

    Jeannette Sutton, Emma S Spiro, Britta Johnson, Sean Fitzhugh, Ben Gibson, and Carter T Butts. 2014. Warning tweets: Serial transmission of messages during the warning phase of a disaster event.Information, Communication & Society 17, 6 (2014), 765–787

    work page 2014

  76. [76]

    Mike Thelwall and David Stuart. 2007. RUOK? Blogging communication technologies during crises.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication12, 2 (2007), 523–548

    work page 2007

  77. [77]

    Phuong Thi VI and Adamkolo Ibrahim Phd. 2025. Influencer Credibility and Authenticity in the Fight Against Misinformation.Feedback International Journal of Communication3 (Sept. 2025), 205–215. https://doi.org/10.62569/ fijc.v3i2.199

    work page 2025

  78. [78]

    Samuel Tomczyk, Maxi Rahn, Francesca Mueller, and Frank Fiedrich. 2025. Sharing and searching on social media in crises and disasters – A latent class analysis of a representative online sample.International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction116 (Jan. 2025), 105077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2024.105077

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2024.105077 2025

  79. [79]

    Trainor, Danielle Nagele, Brenda Philips, and Brittany Scott

    Joseph E. Trainor, Danielle Nagele, Brenda Philips, and Brittany Scott. 2015. Tornadoes, Social Science, and the False Alarm Effect.Weather, Climate, and Society7 (Oct. 2015), 333–352. Issue 4. https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-14-00052.1 Section: Weather, Climate, and Society

    work page doi:10.1175/wcas-d-14-00052.1 2015

  80. [80]

    José Van Dijck and Thomas Poell. 2013. Understanding social media logic.Media and communication1, 1 (2013), 2–14

    work page 2013

Showing first 80 references.