探索推特在2016年美国总统选举投票中的有效性

Brian Heredia, Joseph D. Prusa, T. Khoshgoftaar
{"title":"探索推特在2016年美国总统选举投票中的有效性","authors":"Brian Heredia, Joseph D. Prusa, T. Khoshgoftaar","doi":"10.1109/CIC.2017.00045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Tweets are frequently used to express opinions, specifically when the topic of choice is polarizing, as it is in politics. With many variables effecting the choice of vote, the most effective method of determining election outcome is through public opinion polling. We seek to determine whether Twitter can be an effective polling method for the 2016 United States general election. To this aim, we create a dataset consisting of approximately 3 million tweets ranging from September 22nd to November 8th related to either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. We incorporate two approaches in polling voter opinion for election outcomes: tweet volume and sentiment. Our data is labeled via a convolutional neural network trained on the sentiment140 dataset. To determine whether Twitter is an indicator of election outcome, we compare our results to three polls conducted by various reputable sources during the 13 days before the election. Our results show that when using tweet sentiment, we obtain similar margins to polls conducted during the election period and come close to the actual popular vote outcome.","PeriodicalId":156843,"journal":{"name":"2017 IEEE 3rd International Conference on Collaboration and Internet Computing (CIC)","volume":"135 30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"18","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring the Effectiveness of Twitter at Polling the United States 2016 Presidential Election\",\"authors\":\"Brian Heredia, Joseph D. Prusa, T. Khoshgoftaar\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/CIC.2017.00045\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Tweets are frequently used to express opinions, specifically when the topic of choice is polarizing, as it is in politics. With many variables effecting the choice of vote, the most effective method of determining election outcome is through public opinion polling. We seek to determine whether Twitter can be an effective polling method for the 2016 United States general election. To this aim, we create a dataset consisting of approximately 3 million tweets ranging from September 22nd to November 8th related to either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. We incorporate two approaches in polling voter opinion for election outcomes: tweet volume and sentiment. Our data is labeled via a convolutional neural network trained on the sentiment140 dataset. To determine whether Twitter is an indicator of election outcome, we compare our results to three polls conducted by various reputable sources during the 13 days before the election. Our results show that when using tweet sentiment, we obtain similar margins to polls conducted during the election period and come close to the actual popular vote outcome.\",\"PeriodicalId\":156843,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2017 IEEE 3rd International Conference on Collaboration and Internet Computing (CIC)\",\"volume\":\"135 30 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"18\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2017 IEEE 3rd International Conference on Collaboration and Internet Computing (CIC)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/CIC.2017.00045\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2017 IEEE 3rd International Conference on Collaboration and Internet Computing (CIC)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/CIC.2017.00045","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 18

摘要

推特经常被用来表达观点,特别是当选择的话题两极分化时,就像在政治中一样。由于影响投票选择的变量很多,因此决定选举结果最有效的方法是通过民意调查。我们试图确定推特是否可以成为2016年美国大选的有效投票方法。为此,我们创建了一个由大约300万条推文组成的数据集,从9月22日到11月8日,与唐纳德·特朗普或希拉里·克林顿有关。我们采用了两种方法来调查选民对选举结果的看法:推文数量和情绪。我们的数据是通过在sentiment140数据集上训练的卷积神经网络进行标记的。为了确定Twitter是否是选举结果的一个指标,我们将我们的结果与选举前13天内由不同信誉来源进行的三次民意调查进行了比较。我们的研究结果表明,当使用推特情绪时,我们获得了与选举期间进行的民意调查相似的差距,并且接近实际的普选结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Exploring the Effectiveness of Twitter at Polling the United States 2016 Presidential Election
Tweets are frequently used to express opinions, specifically when the topic of choice is polarizing, as it is in politics. With many variables effecting the choice of vote, the most effective method of determining election outcome is through public opinion polling. We seek to determine whether Twitter can be an effective polling method for the 2016 United States general election. To this aim, we create a dataset consisting of approximately 3 million tweets ranging from September 22nd to November 8th related to either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. We incorporate two approaches in polling voter opinion for election outcomes: tweet volume and sentiment. Our data is labeled via a convolutional neural network trained on the sentiment140 dataset. To determine whether Twitter is an indicator of election outcome, we compare our results to three polls conducted by various reputable sources during the 13 days before the election. Our results show that when using tweet sentiment, we obtain similar margins to polls conducted during the election period and come close to the actual popular vote outcome.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信