International public opinion analysis of four olympic games: From 2008 to 2022

IF 3.7 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH 安全科学与韧性(英文) Pub Date : 2022-09-01 DOI:10.1016/j.jnlssr.2022.03.002
Kun Jia , Yizhen Zhu , Yuxin Zhang , Feng Liu , Jiayin Qi
{"title":"International public opinion analysis of four olympic games: From 2008 to 2022","authors":"Kun Jia ,&nbsp;Yizhen Zhu ,&nbsp;Yuxin Zhang ,&nbsp;Feng Liu ,&nbsp;Jiayin Qi","doi":"10.1016/j.jnlssr.2022.03.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Since the rapid spread of the COVID-19 worldwide, the pandemic has led to a huge impact on global sporting events. As a major international event, the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics has commonalities with the 2008 Beijing Olympics, the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics, and the 2020 Tokyo Olympics in terms of international public opinion context and epidemiological background. In this study, over 1 million pieces of UGC(User Generated Contents) in Chinese and English languages were obtained from social media platforms such as Twitter, YouTube, as well as traditional mass media in various countries to compare the differences between the two languages in international public opinion. Using sentiment analysis, this study explores the evolution of international public opinion topics and sentiment differences among the above four Olympic Games. The analysis results show that:1) regardless of traditional mass media or online social media, there is a more obvious tendency of general politicization in the topics of the 2008 Beijing Olympics and 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics, and extreme emotional remarks of the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics are more frequent; 2) in the topic of political opinion involving China, international Chinese public opinion presents more negative sentiment than those in English; 3) Among the topics involving COVID-19, the negative level of public opinion in Chinese and English is opposite for the 2020 Tokyo Olympics and the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics;4) International public opinion on the topic of sports events is significantly more positive in Chinese than in English;5) YouTube’s Chinese opinion environment is better than English.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":62710,"journal":{"name":"安全科学与韧性(英文)","volume":"3 3","pages":"Pages 252-262"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666449622000172/pdfft?md5=99985bdefdfd17c7cf08798c885eb94e&pid=1-s2.0-S2666449622000172-main.pdf","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"安全科学与韧性(英文)","FirstCategoryId":"1087","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666449622000172","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Since the rapid spread of the COVID-19 worldwide, the pandemic has led to a huge impact on global sporting events. As a major international event, the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics has commonalities with the 2008 Beijing Olympics, the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics, and the 2020 Tokyo Olympics in terms of international public opinion context and epidemiological background. In this study, over 1 million pieces of UGC(User Generated Contents) in Chinese and English languages were obtained from social media platforms such as Twitter, YouTube, as well as traditional mass media in various countries to compare the differences between the two languages in international public opinion. Using sentiment analysis, this study explores the evolution of international public opinion topics and sentiment differences among the above four Olympic Games. The analysis results show that:1) regardless of traditional mass media or online social media, there is a more obvious tendency of general politicization in the topics of the 2008 Beijing Olympics and 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics, and extreme emotional remarks of the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics are more frequent; 2) in the topic of political opinion involving China, international Chinese public opinion presents more negative sentiment than those in English; 3) Among the topics involving COVID-19, the negative level of public opinion in Chinese and English is opposite for the 2020 Tokyo Olympics and the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics;4) International public opinion on the topic of sports events is significantly more positive in Chinese than in English;5) YouTube’s Chinese opinion environment is better than English.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
2008年至2022年四届奥运会国际舆情分析
自2019冠状病毒病在全球迅速传播以来,疫情对全球体育赛事产生了巨大影响。作为重大国际赛事,2022年北京冬奥会与2008年北京奥运会、2014年索契冬奥会、2020年东京奥运会在国际舆论背景和流行病学背景上具有共性。本研究从Twitter、YouTube等社交媒体平台以及各国的传统大众媒体中获取了100多万条中英文UGC(User Generated Contents,用户生成内容),以比较两种语言在国际舆论中的差异。本研究采用情感分析的方法,探讨了国际舆论话题的演变以及上述四届奥运会的情感差异。分析结果表明:1)无论是传统大众媒体还是网络社交媒体,2008年北京奥运会和2022年北京冬奥会的话题普遍政治化倾向更为明显,极端情绪化的2022年北京冬奥会言论更为频繁;2)在涉及中国的政治意见话题中,国际汉语民意比英语民意表现出更多的负面情绪;3)在涉及COVID-19的话题中,2020年东京奥运会和2022年北京冬奥会的中英文舆论负面程度相反;4)体育赛事话题的中文国际舆论明显高于英文;5)YouTube的中文舆论环境好于英文。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
安全科学与韧性(英文)
安全科学与韧性(英文) Management Science and Operations Research, Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality, Safety Research
CiteScore
8.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
72 days
期刊最新文献
Grasping emergency dynamics: A review of group evacuation techniques and strategies in major emergencies Multi-factor coupled forest fire model based on cellular automata Scenario construction and vulnerability assessment of natural hazards-triggered power grid accidents Risk assessment of fire casualty in underground commercial building based on FFTA-BN model Determination of individual disaster resilience levels of hospital staff: A case study of Kartal Dr. Lütfi Kirdar City Hospital
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1