自然语言处理在政治极化研究中的应用综述:趋势与研究展望。

IF 2 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS
Journal of Computational Social Science Pub Date : 2023-01-01 Epub Date: 2022-12-19 DOI:10.1007/s42001-022-00196-2
Renáta Németh
{"title":"自然语言处理在政治极化研究中的应用综述:趋势与研究展望。","authors":"Renáta Németh","doi":"10.1007/s42001-022-00196-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>As part of the \"text-as-data\" movement, Natural Language Processing (NLP) provides a computational way to examine political polarization. We conducted a methodological scoping review of studies published since 2010 (<i>n</i> = 154) to clarify how NLP research has conceptualized and measured political polarization, and to characterize the degree of integration of the two different research paradigms that meet in this research area. We identified biases toward US context (59%), Twitter data (43%) and machine learning approach (33%). Research covers different layers of the political public sphere (politicians, experts, media, or the lay public), however, very few studies involved more than one layer. Results indicate that only a few studies made use of domain knowledge and a high proportion of the studies were not interdisciplinary. Those studies that made efforts to interpret the results demonstrated that the characteristics of political texts depend not only on the political position of their authors, but also on other often-overlooked factors. Ignoring these factors may lead to overly optimistic performance measures. Also, spurious results may be obtained when causal relations are inferred from textual data. Our paper provides arguments for the integration of explanatory and predictive modeling paradigms, and for a more interdisciplinary approach to polarization research.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s42001-022-00196-2.</p>","PeriodicalId":29946,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Computational Social Science","volume":"6 1","pages":"289-313"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9762668/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A scoping review on the use of natural language processing in research on political polarization: trends and research prospects.\",\"authors\":\"Renáta Németh\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s42001-022-00196-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>As part of the \\\"text-as-data\\\" movement, Natural Language Processing (NLP) provides a computational way to examine political polarization. We conducted a methodological scoping review of studies published since 2010 (<i>n</i> = 154) to clarify how NLP research has conceptualized and measured political polarization, and to characterize the degree of integration of the two different research paradigms that meet in this research area. We identified biases toward US context (59%), Twitter data (43%) and machine learning approach (33%). Research covers different layers of the political public sphere (politicians, experts, media, or the lay public), however, very few studies involved more than one layer. Results indicate that only a few studies made use of domain knowledge and a high proportion of the studies were not interdisciplinary. Those studies that made efforts to interpret the results demonstrated that the characteristics of political texts depend not only on the political position of their authors, but also on other often-overlooked factors. Ignoring these factors may lead to overly optimistic performance measures. Also, spurious results may be obtained when causal relations are inferred from textual data. Our paper provides arguments for the integration of explanatory and predictive modeling paradigms, and for a more interdisciplinary approach to polarization research.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s42001-022-00196-2.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":29946,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Computational Social Science\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"289-313\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9762668/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Computational Social Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001-022-00196-2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/12/19 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Computational Social Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001-022-00196-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/12/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

作为“文本即数据”运动的一部分,自然语言处理(NLP)提供了一种计算方法来检查政治两极分化。我们对2010年以来发表的研究(n = 154)进行了方法学范围审查,以阐明NLP研究如何概念化和测量政治两极分化,并表征在该研究领域遇到的两种不同研究范式的整合程度。我们发现了对美国背景(59%)、Twitter数据(43%)和机器学习方法(33%)的偏见。研究涵盖了政治公共领域的不同层面(政治家、专家、媒体或非专业公众),然而,很少有研究涉及超过一个层面。结果表明,利用领域知识的研究较少,非跨学科研究占很大比例。那些努力解释结果的研究表明,政治文本的特征不仅取决于其作者的政治立场,还取决于其他经常被忽视的因素。忽略这些因素可能会导致过于乐观的绩效指标。此外,当从文本数据推断因果关系时,可能会得到虚假的结果。我们的论文为解释和预测模型范式的整合提供了论据,并为极化研究提供了更跨学科的方法。补充信息:在线版本提供的补充资料为10.1007/s42001-022-00196-2。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

A scoping review on the use of natural language processing in research on political polarization: trends and research prospects.

A scoping review on the use of natural language processing in research on political polarization: trends and research prospects.

A scoping review on the use of natural language processing in research on political polarization: trends and research prospects.

A scoping review on the use of natural language processing in research on political polarization: trends and research prospects.

As part of the "text-as-data" movement, Natural Language Processing (NLP) provides a computational way to examine political polarization. We conducted a methodological scoping review of studies published since 2010 (n = 154) to clarify how NLP research has conceptualized and measured political polarization, and to characterize the degree of integration of the two different research paradigms that meet in this research area. We identified biases toward US context (59%), Twitter data (43%) and machine learning approach (33%). Research covers different layers of the political public sphere (politicians, experts, media, or the lay public), however, very few studies involved more than one layer. Results indicate that only a few studies made use of domain knowledge and a high proportion of the studies were not interdisciplinary. Those studies that made efforts to interpret the results demonstrated that the characteristics of political texts depend not only on the political position of their authors, but also on other often-overlooked factors. Ignoring these factors may lead to overly optimistic performance measures. Also, spurious results may be obtained when causal relations are inferred from textual data. Our paper provides arguments for the integration of explanatory and predictive modeling paradigms, and for a more interdisciplinary approach to polarization research.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s42001-022-00196-2.

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
Journal of Computational Social Science
Journal of Computational Social Science SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS-
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
6.20%
发文量
30
×
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