AFET SONRASI ULUSÖTESİ DİJİTAL SOSYAL DESTEK EKOLOJİSİ: 2023 KAHRAMANMARAŞ DEPREMLERİNE İLİŞKİN X PAYLAŞIMLARININ BERTOPİC VE DUYGU ANALİZİ TEMELLİ HARİTALANMASI

Abstract

Bu çalışma, 6 Şubat 2023 Kahramanmaraş merkezli depremlerin ardından Twitter/X platformunda oluşan ulusötesi dijital yankıyı ve afetlerde sosyal hizmet üzerinden ilişkilendirilebilecek destek söylemlerini incelemektedir. İngilizce paylaşımlardan oluşan veri seti; BERTopic temelli konu modelleme, duygu analizi, sosyal destek sınıflandırması, coğrafi çözümleme ve etkileşim göstergeleri kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular; deprem söyleminin insani kayıplar, arama-kurtarma faaliyetleri, bağış ve yardım kampanyaları, ulusötesi dayanışma, yapı güvenliği ve siyasal sorumluluk gibi temalar etrafında yoğunlaştığını göstermektedir. Pozitif duygusal yönelimlerin kurtarma, umut, teşekkür ve dayanışma anlatılarında; negatif yönelimlerin ise kayıp, yıkım, kurumsal eleştiri ve sorumluluk tartışmalarında belirginleştiği görülmüştür. Coğrafi analizler, profil konumunu Hindistan, ABD ve Pakistan olarak bildiren hesapların veri setinde yüksek görünürlüğe sahip olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Ancak bu dağılım, ülkelerin fiilî yardım kapasitesinden çok ulusötesi dijital katılımın coğrafi görünürlüğünü yansıtmaktadır. Sonuçlar, sosyal medyanın afet dönemlerinde bilgi paylaşımı, duygusal dayanışma, yardım mobilizasyonu ve sorumluluk taleplerinin aynı dijital ortamda görünürlük kazandığı çok katmanlı bir iletişim alanı sunduğuna işaret etmektedir. Sosyal hizmet açısından bulgular, afet sonrası ihtiyaç, dayanışma ve savunuculuk örüntülerinin dijital ortamda izlenmesine katkı sağlamaktadır. Hesaplamalı sosyal bilimler bakımından ise çalışma, geniş ölçekli sosyal medya verilerinin tematik, duygusal, coğrafi ve etkileşimsel boyutlarının birlikte çözümlenebileceğini göstermektedir. Çalışma, afet yönetimi, sosyal hizmet, sivil toplum ve insani yardım politikalarında dijital verilerin tamamlayıcı kullanımına yönelik çıkarımlar sunmaktadır.

Keywords

• Sosyal Hizmet
• Küresel Yankı
• Konu Modellemesi
• Duygu Analizi
• Deprem Çağrısı

POST-DISASTER TRANSNATIONAL DIGITAL SOCIAL SUPPORT ECOSYSTEM: MAPPING X POSTS RELATED TO THE 2023 KAHRAMANMARAŞ EARTHQUAKES USING BERTOPIC AND SENTIMENT ANALYSIS*

Abstract

This study examines the international digital echo that emerged on the Twitter/X platform following the February 6, 2023, earthquakes centered in Kahramanmaraş, as well as the support-related discourse that can be linked to social services in the context of disasters. The dataset, consisting of posts in English, was analyzed using BERTopic-based topic modeling, sentiment analysis, social support classification, geographic analysis, and engagement metrics. The findings indicate that earthquake-related discourse centered on themes such as human casualties, search-and-rescue operations, donation and aid campaigns, international solidarity, structural safety, and political accountability. Positive emotional orientations were evident in narratives of rescue, hope, gratitude, and solidarity, while negative orientations were prominent in discussions of loss, destruction, institutional criticism, and accountability. Geographic analyses revealed that accounts reporting their location as India, the United States, and Pakistan had high visibility in the dataset. However, this distribution reflects the geographic visibility of international digital participation rather than the actual aid capacity of these countries. The results indicate that social media offers a multilayered communication space where information sharing, emotional solidarity, aid mobilization, and calls for accountability all gain visibility within the same digital environment during disaster periods. From a social work perspective, the findings contribute to tracking post-disaster needs, solidarity, and advocacy patterns in the digital sphere. From the perspective of computational social sciences, the study demonstrates that the thematic, emotional, geographic, and interactive dimensions of large-scale social media data can be analyzed together. The study offers insights into the complementary use of digital data in disaster management, social work, civil society, and humanitarian aid policies.

Keywords

• Social Work
• Global Resonance
• Topic Modeling
• Sentiment Analysis
• Earthquake Appeals

References

1. AFAD. (2023). Pazarcık-Elbistan Kahramanmaraş (Mw: 7.7 – Mw: 7.6) Depremleri Raporu. T.C. İçişleri Bakanlığı Afet ve Acil Durum Yönetimi Başkanlığı. https://deprem.afad.gov.tr/assets/pdf/Kahramanmara%C5%9F%20Depremi%20%20Raporu_02.06.2023.pdf
2. Ahn, J., Son, H., & Chung, A. D. (2021). Understanding public engagement on twitter using topic modeling: The 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake case. International Journal of Information Management Data Insights, 1(2), 100033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jjimei.2021.100033
3. Al Gharaibeh, F. (2024). Social work response to the earthquake disaster in the Middle East: Syria and Turkey as a case study. International Social Work, 67(6), 1341-1346. https://doi.org/10.1177/00208728241269668
4. Alam, F., Sajjad, H., Imran, M., & Ofli, F. (2021). CrisisBench: Benchmarking crisis-related social media datasets for humanitarian information processing. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM), https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v15i1.18115
5. Aldamen, H., & Hacimic, A. (2023). Positive Determinism of Twitter Usage Development in Crisis Communication: Rescue and Relief Efforts after the 6 February 2023 Earthquake in Türkiye as a Case Study. Social Sciences, 12(8), 436. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12080436
6. Alexander, D. E. (2014). Social media in disaster risk reduction and crisis management. Science and Engineering Ethics, 20(3), 717–733. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-013-9502-z
7. Boyacı Yıldırım, M., & Yıldız, E. (2025). Hesaplamalı sosyal bilimler ve iletişim: Yeni medya, yapay zekâ ve veri odaklı yaklaşımlar. Nobel Bilimsel Eserler.
8. Brown, L. M., Haun, J., & Peterson, L. (2014). A Proposed Disaster Literacy Model. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 8(3), 267–275. https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2014.43

9. Caputo, R., & Pavlides, S. B. (2008). Earthquake geology: Methods and applications. Tectonophysics, 453(1–4), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2008.01.007
10. Chouliaraki, L. (2010). Ordinary witnessing in post-television news: towards a new moral imagination. Critical Discourse Studies, 7(4), 305–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2010.511839
11. Chowdhury, R., Heng, K., Shawon, M.S.R. et al. (2020). Dynamic interventions to control COVID-19 pandemic: a multivariate prediction modelling study comparing 16 worldwide countries: R. Chowdhury et al. European journal of epidemiology, 35(5), 389-399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-020-00649-w
12. Coppola, D. P. (2015). Introduction to international disaster management. Butterworth Heinemann.
13. Dominelli, L. (2012). Green social work: From environmental crises to environmental justice. Polity Press.
14. Erokhin, D., & Komendantova, N. (2023). The role of bots in spreading conspiracies: Case study of discourse about earthquakes on Twitter. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 92, 103740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103740
15. Fagereng, Å., & Toy, V. (2011). Geology of the earthquake source: an introduction. Geological Society London Special Publications, 359(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1144/sp359.1
16. Feng, Y., Huang, X., & Sester, M. (2022). Extraction and analysis of natural disaster-related VGI from social media: Review, opportunities and challenges. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 36(7), 1275–1316. https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2022.2048835
17. Gözükızıl, C. A., & Tezcan, S. (2023). Cumhuriyet’in Yüzüncü Yılında Türkiye’de Afetler: 06 Şubat 2023 Kahramanmaraş Depremi. Kent Akademisi. https://doi.org/10.35674/kent.1353445
18. Grootendorst, M. (2022). BERTopic: Neural topic modeling with a class-based TF-IDF procedure. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2203.05794.
19. Gullberg, C., & Gustafsson, N. (2025). Accountability through (Inter)Action? A Framework of Affordances for Understanding Civil Society Accountability on Social Media Platforms. Social Media + Society, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051251340146
20. Hay, K., & Pascoe, K. M. (2022). Engaging social workers in disaster management: Case studies from New Zealand. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 74, 102941. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.102941
21. Hecht, B., Hong, L., Suh, B., & Chi, E. H. (2011). Tweets from Justin Bieber’s heart: The dynamics of the “location” field in user profiles. In CHI 2011: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 237–246). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1978976.
22. Houston, J. B., Hawthorne, J., Perreault, M. F., Park, E. H., Goldstein Hode, M., Halliwell, M. R., Turner Mcgowen, S. E., Davis, R., Vaid, S., Mcelderry, J. A., & Griffith, S. A. (2015). Social media and disasters: A functional framework for social media use in disaster planning, response, and research. Disasters, 39(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12092
23. Hutto, C. J., & Gilbert, E. (2014). VADER: A parsimonious rule-based model for sentiment analysis of social media text. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM), https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v8i1.14550.
24. Imran, M., Castillo, C., Díaz, F., & Vieweg, S. (2015). Processing Social Media Messages in Mass Emergency. Acm Computing Surveys, 47(4), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1145/2771588
25. Imran, M., Mitra, P., & Castillo, C. (2016). Twitter as a lifeline: Human-annotated Twitter corpora for NLP of crisis-related messages. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’16) (pp. 1638–1643). European Language Resources Association.
26. Kapucu, N., & Özerdem, A. (2013). Managing emergencies and crises. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
27. Karataş, D., & Bek, M. G. (2024). Digital Battlegrounds: The Interplay of Social Media, State Power, and Influencers in Türkiye’s Earthquake Response. Social Media + Society, 10(3), https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051241269305
28. Karimiziarani, M., & Moradkhani, H. (2023). Social response and Disaster management: Insights from twitter data Assimilation on Hurricane Ian. International journal of disaster risk reduction, 95, 103865. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103865
29. Kiavash, P., Tanaltay, A., & Tabatabaei, R. A. (2026). Can social media predict demand in humanitarian crises? A case study of the 2023 Türkiye earthquake. Technology in Society, 84, 103054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2025.103054
30. Koç, H., & Yalçın, S. (2023). Crisis intervention in disasters: The work of the Ministry of Family and Social Services in Kahramanmaraş Earthquake. International Journal of Social Work Research, 3(2), 93–105. https://doi.org/10.57114/jswrpub.1257945 Kovács, G., & Spens, K. (2007). Humanitarian logistics in disaster relief operations. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 37(2), 99–114. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600030710734820 Lazer, D., Pentland, A., Adamic, L. A., Aral, S., Barabási, A.-Ĺ., Brewer, D. D., Christakis, N. A., Contractor, N., Fowler, J. H., Gutmann, M. P., Jebara, T., King, G., Macy, M. W., Roy, D., & Alstyne, M. V. (2009). Computational Social Science. Science, 323(5915), 721–723. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1167742
31. Lindell, M. K., & Perry, R. W. (2011). The Protective Action Decision Model: Theoretical Modifications and Additional Evidence. Risk Analysis, 32(4), 616–632. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01647.x
32. Liu, B. F., Fraustino, J. D., & Jin, Y. (2016). Social Media Use During Disasters: How Information Form and Source Influence Intended Behavioral Responses: How Information Form and Source Influence Intended Behavioral Responses. Communication Research, 43(5), 626–646. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650214565917
33. Liu, H., & Han, Z. (2025). Earthquake resilience and public engagement: A social media perspective. Risk Analysis, 45(9), 2667–2684. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.70041
34. Lovari, A., & Bowen, S. A. (2019). Social media in disaster communication: A case study of strategies, barriers, and ethical implications. Journal of Public Affairs, 20(1), e1967. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1967
35. Meier, P. (2015). Digital humanitarians: how big data is changing the face of humanitarian response. Routledge, London
36. Merchant, R. M., Elmer, S., & Lurie, N. (2011). Integrating social media into emergency-preparedness efforts. New England Journal of Medicine, 365(4), 289-291. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1103591
37. Mızrak, S. (2024). Public's social media use during the Kahramanmaraş earthquakes on 6 February 2023. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 108, 104541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2024.104541
38. Olteanu, A., Vieweg, S., & Castillo, C. (2015). What to Expect When the Unexpected Happens. Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work &Amp; Social Computing, 994–1009. https://doi.org/10.1145/2675133.2675242
39. Öztürk, N., & Ayvaz, S. (2018). Sentiment analysis on Twitter: A text mining approach to the Syrian refugee crisis. Telematics and Informatics, 35(1), 136–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.10.006
40. Palen, L., & Anderson, K. M. (2016). Crisis informatics—New data for extraordinary times. Science, 353(6296), 224–225. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aag2579
41. Paton, D. (2003). Disaster preparedness: a social‐cognitive perspective. Disaster Prevention and Management an International Journal, 12(3), 210–216. https://doi.org/10.1108/09653560310480686 Preda, G. (2023). Turkey earthquake tweets. Kaggle. Erişim Tarihi: 19 Nisan 2026, https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/gpreda/turkey-earthquake-tweets.
42. Purohit, H., Castillo, C., Diaz, F., Sheth, A., & Meier, P. (2014). Emergency-relief coordination on social media: Automatically matching resource requests and offers. First Monday, 19(1), https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v19i1.4848.
43. Rashid, A. K., & Fındık, O. (2024). Sentiment analysis of Twitter: Turkey earthquake 2023 case. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 3699, 14.
44. Reimers, N., & Gurevych, I. (2019). Sentence-BERT: Sentence embeddings using Siamese BERT-networks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP) (pp. 3982–3992). Association for Computational Linguistics, https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D19-1410.
45. Rodriguez, M. Y., & Storer, H. L. (2020). A computational social science perspective on qualitative data exploration: Using topic models for the descriptive analysis of social media data*. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 38(1), 54–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228835.2019.1616350
46. Shaluf, I. M., Ahmadun, F., & Mat Said, A. (2003). A review of disaster and crisis. Disaster Prevention and Management : An International Journal, 12(1), 24–32. https://doi.org/10.1108/09653560310463829
47. Shaw, R., Kobayashi, K. S. H., & Kobayashi, M. (2004). Linking experience, education, perception and earthquake preparedness. Disaster Prevention and Management an International Journal, 13(1), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1108/09653560410521689
48. Shen, M., Xu, H., Liu, H., & Han, Z. (2025). How did the Chinese Public Discuss the 2023 Türkiye-Syria Earthquake and the Humanitarian Response on Social Media? A Topical and Sentimental Analysis. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 16, 361–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-025-00641-6
49. Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of Risk. Science, 236(4799), 280–285. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3563507
50. T.C. Cumhurbaşkanlığı Strateji ve Bütçe Başkanlığı. (2023, Mart 17). 2023 Kahramanmaraş ve Hatay depremleri raporu. https://www.sbb.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/2023-Kahramanmaras-ve-Hatay-Depremleri-Raporu.pdf
51. Tuncalp, D., & Cetindamar, D. (2025). Grassroots digital humanitarianism and regenerative synergy in the 2023 Türkiye earthquake. Technology in Society, 85, 103174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2025.103174
52. Tupper, J., & Karacaoğlu, Ö. C. (2025). Access to information and social solidarity in the 2023 Turkey earthquake: disaster education as citizenship education. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12, 386. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04707-0
53. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR). 2017. The Sendai Framework Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction. “Disaster”. Accessed 29 April 2026. https://www.undrr.org/terminology/disaster
54. United Nations Population Fund. (2023). TÜRKIYE /SYRIA EARTHQUAKE- Joint Situation Report #1 https://turkiye.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/sitrep_backup._adjusted_v2_0.pdf
55. Villegas-Ch, W., Molina, S., De Janón, V., Montalvo, E., & Mera-Navarrete, A. (2022). Proposal of a method for the analysis of sentiments in social networks with the use of R. Informatics, 9(3), 63, https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics9030063
56. Wachinger, G., Renn, O., Begg, C., & Kuhlicke, C. (2012). The Risk Perception Paradox—Implications for Governance and Communication of Natural Hazards. Risk Analysis, 33(6), 1049–1065. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01942.x
57. Wassenhove, L. N. V. (2006). Humanitarian aid logistics: supply chain management in high gear. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 57(5), 475–489. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602125
58. Yetimoğlu, E., & Karahan Adalı, G. (2025). Sentiment analysis on social media during crisis events: The case of Kahramanmaraş earthquake. AJIT-e: Online Academic Journal of Information Technology, 16(1), 52–68. https://doi.org/10.5824/ajite.2025.01.003.x