oa Talking politics: Building and validating data-driven lexica to measure political discussion quality

References

1. Baxter, L. A. (2006). Communication as dialogue. GJ Shepherd, J. St. John, & TG Striphas (Eds.), Communication as—: Perspectives on theory, 101–109.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Beauchamp, N. (2020). Modeling and measuring deliberation online. In The oxford handbook of networked communication.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Berry, J. M., & Sobieraj, S. (2013). The outrage industry: Political opinion media and the new incivility. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Chen, G. M. (2017). Online incivility and public debate: Nasty talk. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, C., Sudhof, M., Jurafsky, D., Leskovec, J., & Potts, C. (2013). A computational approach to politeness with application to social factors. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) (pp. 250–259). Sofia, Bulgaria: Association for Computational Linguistics.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Davidson, T., Warmsley, D., Macy, M., & Weber, I. (2017). Automated hate speech detection and the problem of offensive language. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (pp. 512–515).
   [Google Scholar]
7. Dobbrick, T., Jakob, J., Chan, C.-H., & Wessler, H. (2021). Enhancing theory-informed dictionary approaches with “glass-box” machine learning: The case of integrative complexity in social media comments. Communication Methods and Measures, 1–18.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Erlich, A., Dantas, S. G., Bagozzi, B. E., Berliner, D., & Palmer-Rubin, B. (2021). Multi-label prediction for political text-as-data. Political Analysis, 1–18.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Esteve Del Valle, M., Sijtsma, R., & Stegeman, H. (2018). Social media and the public sphere in the Dutch parliamentary Twitter network: A space for political deliberation?Hamburg, Germany: ECPR General Conference.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Fournier-Tombs, E., & Di Marzo Serugendo, G. (2019). Delibanalysis: Understanding the quality of online political discourse with machine learning. Journal of Information Science, 0165551519871828.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Friess, D., & Eilders, C. (2015). A systematic review of online deliberation research. Policy & Internet, 7 (3), 319–339. doi: 10.1002/poi3.95
    [Google Scholar]
12. Gastil, J. (2008). Political communication and deliberation. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Grimmer, J., & Stewart, B. M. (2013). Text as data: The promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts. Political analysis, 21 (3), 267–297.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Halpern, D., & Gibbs, J. (2013). Social media as a catalyst for online deliberation? Exploring the affordances of Facebook and YouTube for political expression. Computers in Human Behavior, 29 (3), 1159–1168. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.008
    [Google Scholar]
15. Himmelroos, S. (2017). Discourse quality in deliberative citizen forums – A comparison of four deliberative mini-publics. Journal of Public Deliberation, 13 (1), Article 3.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Jaidka, K. (2022, June). Developing a multilabel corpus for the quality assessment of online political talk. In Proceedings of the language resources and evaluation conference (pp. 5503–5510). Marseille, France: European Language Resources Association. Retrieved from https://aclanthology.org/2022.lrec-1.589
    [Google Scholar]
17. Jaidka, K., Zhou, A., & Lelkes, Y. (2019). Brevity is the soul of twitter: The constraint affordance and political discussion. Journal of Communication, 69 (4), 345–372.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Jaidka, K., Zhou, A., Lelkes, Y., Egelhofer, J., & Lecheler, S. (2022). Beyond anonymity: Network affordances, under deindividuation, improve social media discussion quality. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 27 (1), zmab019.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Jakob, J., Dobbrick, T., Freudenthaler, R., Haffner, P., & Wessler, H. (2022). Is constructive engagement online a lost cause? toxic outrage in online user comments across democratic political systems and discussion arenas. Communication Research, 00936502211062773.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Jakob, J., Dobbrick, T., & Wessler, H. (2021). The integrative complexity of online user comments across different types of democracy and discussion arenas. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 19401612211044018.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Janssen, D., & Kies, R. (2005). Online forums and deliberative democracy. Acta Politica, 40 (3), 317–335. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500115
    [Google Scholar]
22. Kobayashi, S. (2018). Contextual augmentation: Data augmentation by words with paradigmatic relations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.06201.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. biometrics, 159–174.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Liao, W., Zhang, J., Oh, Y. J., & Palomares, N. A. (2021). Linguistic accommodation enhances compliance to charity donation: The role of interpersonal communication processes in mediated compliance-gaining conversations. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Maia, R. C. M., & Rezende, T. A. S. (2016). Respect and disrespect in deliberation across the networked media environment: Examining multiple paths of political talk. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 21 (2), 121–139. doi: 10.1111/jcc4.12155
    [Google Scholar]
26. Matias, J. N. (2019). Preventing harassment and increasing group participation through social norms in 2,190 online science discussions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116 (20), 9785–9789.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Monroe, B. L., Colaresi, M. P., & Quinn, K. M. (2008). Fightin’words: Lexical feature selection and evaluation for identifying the content of political conflict. Political Analysis, 16 (4), 372–403.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Monroe, B. L., & Schrodt, P. A. (2008). Introduction to the special issue: The statistical analysis of political text. Political Analysis, 16 (4), 351–355.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Muddiman, A., McGregor, S. C., & Stroud, N. J. (2018). (Re)claiming our expertise: Parsing large text corpora with manually validated and organic dictionaries. Political Communication. doi: 10.1080/10584609.2018.1517843
    [Google Scholar]
30. Niculae, V., Kumar, S., Boyd-Graber, J., & Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, C. (2015). Linguistic harbingers of betrayal: A case study on an online strategy game. arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.04744.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Oz, M., Zheng, P., & Chen, G. M. (2018). Twitter versus Facebook: Comparing incivility, impoliteness, and deliberative attributes. New Media & Society, 20 (9), 3400–3419. doi: 10.1177/1461444817749516
    [Google Scholar]
32. Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., & Duchesnay, E. (2011). Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825–2830
    [Google Scholar]
33. Pennebaker, J. W., Boyd, R. L., Jordan, K., & Blackburn, K. (2015). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2015 (Tech. Rep.). Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Peskov, D., Cheng, B., Elgohary, A., Barrow, J., Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, C., & Boyd-Graber, J. (2020). It takes two to lie: One to lie, and one to listen. In Proceedings of the 58th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (pp. 3811–3854).
    [Google Scholar]
35. Potter, W. J., & Levine-Donnerstein, D. (1999). Rethinking validity and reliability in content analysis.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Preoţiuc-Pietro, D., Liu, Y., Hopkins, D., & Ungar, L. (2017). Beyond binary labels: political ideology prediction of twitter users. In Proceedings of the 55th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (volume 1: Long papers) (pp. 729–740).
    [Google Scholar]
37. Rinke, E. M. (2015). Mediated deliberation. The International Encyclopedia of Political Communication.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Rowe, I. (2015). Deliberation 2.0: Comparing the deliberative quality of online news user comments across platforms. Journal of broadcasting & electronic media, 59 (4), 539–555.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Schwartz, H. A., Eichstaedt, J. C., Kern, M. L., Dziurzynski, L., Ramones, S. M., Agrawal, M., & others (2013). Personality, gender, and age in the language of social media: The open-vocabulary approach. PloS one, 8 (9), e73791.
    [Google Scholar]
40. Steenbergen, M. R., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M., & Steiner, J. (2003). Measuring political deliberation: A discourse quality index. Comparative European Politics, 1 (1), 21–48. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.cep.6110002
    [Google Scholar]
41. Stromer-Galley, J. (2007). Measuring deliberation’s content: A coding scheme. Journal of Public Deliberation, 3 (1), Article 12.
    [Google Scholar]
42. Stromer-Galley, J., & Martinson, A. M. (2009). Coherence in political computer-mediated communication: Analyzing topic relevance and drift in chat. Discourse & Communication, 3 (2), 195–216. doi: 10.1177/1750481309102452
    [Google Scholar]
43. Stroud, N. J., Scacco, J. M., Muddiman, A., & Curry, A. L. (2015). Changing deliberative norms on news organizations’ Facebook sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20 (2), 188–203. doi: 10.1111/jcc4.12104
    [Google Scholar]
44. Theocharis, Y., Barberá, P., Fazekas, Z., Popa, S. A., & Parnet, O. (2016). A bad workman blames his tweets: The consequences of citizens’ uncivil Twitter use when interacting with party candidates. Journal of Communication, 66 (6), 1007–1031. doi: 10.1111/jcom.12259
    [Google Scholar]
45. Wessler, H. (2008). Investigating deliberativeness comparatively. Political communication, 25 (1), 1–22.
    [Google Scholar]
46. Wolf, T., Debut, L., Sanh, V., Chaumond, J., Delangue, C., Moi, A., & others (2019). Huggingface’s transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.03771.
    [Google Scholar]
47. Fournier-Tombs, E., & Di Marzo Serugendo, G. (2019). Delibanalysis: Understanding the quality of online political discourse with machine learning. Journal of Information Science, 0165551519871828.
    [Google Scholar]
48. Groshek, J., & Cutino, C. (2016). Meaner on mobile: Incivility and impoliteness in communicating contentious politics on sociotechnical networks. Social Media + Society, 2 (4), 1–10. doi: 10.1177/2056305116677137
    [Google Scholar]
49. Halpern, D., & Gibbs, J. (2013). Social media as a catalyst for online deliberation? Exploring the affordances of Facebook and YouTube for political expression. Computers in Human Behavior, 29 (3), 1159–1168. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.008
    [Google Scholar]
50. Jaidka, K., Zhou, A., & Lelkes, Y. (2019). Brevity is the soul of twitter: The constraint affordance and political discussion. Journal of Communication, 69 (4), 345–372.
    [Google Scholar]
51. Maia, R. C. M., & Rezende, T. A. S. (2016). Respect and disrespect in deliberation across the networked media environment: Examining multiple paths of political talk. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 21 (2), 121–139. doi: 10.1111/jcc4.12155
    [Google Scholar]
52. Papacharissi, Z. (2004). Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society, 6 (2), 259–283. doi: 10.1177/1461444804041444
    [Google Scholar]
53. Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., & Duchesnay, E. (2011). Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825–2830.
    [Google Scholar]
54. Rinke, E. M. (2015). Mediated deliberation. The International Encyclopedia of Political Communication.
    [Google Scholar]
55. Rossini, P. (2020). Beyond incivility: Understanding patterns of uncivil and intolerant discourse in online political talk. Communication Research. doi: 10.1177/0093650220921314
    [Google Scholar]
56. Stromer-Galley, J., & Martinson, A. M. (2009). Coherence in political computer-mediated communication: Analyzing topic relevance and drift in chat. Discourse & Communication, 3 (2), 195–216. doi: 10.1177/1750481309102452
    [Google Scholar]
57. Wessler, H. (2008). Investigating deliberativeness comparatively. Political communication, 25 (1), 1–22.
    [Google Scholar]