Computer-assisted topic classification for mixed-methods social science research

Journal of Information Technology and Politics

Volumn 4, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 31-46

  Hillard, Dustin ^a   Purpura, Stephen ^b   Wilkerson, John ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^b Social Dynamics Laboratory   (United States)

Author keywords

Congress; Content analysis; Data mining; Information retrieval; Legislation; Machine learning; Text annotation; Topic classification

Indexed keywords

EID: 62249199788     PISSN: 19331681     EISSN: 1933169X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/19331680801975367     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Adler, E. S., & Wilkerson, J. (2008). Intended consequences? Committee reform and jurisdictional change in the House of Representatives. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 33(1), 85-112.
2. Baum, M. (2003). Soft news goes to war: Public opinion and American foreign policy in the new media age. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
3. Baumgartner, F., Jones, B. D., & Wilkerson, J. (2002). Studying policy dynamics. In F. Baumgarter & B. D. Jones (Eds.), Policy dynamics (pp. 37-56). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4. Breiman, L. (2001). Statistical modeling: The two cultures. Statistical Science, 16(3), 199-231.
5. Brill, E. & Wu, J. (1998). Classifier combination for improved lexical disambiguation. In Proceedings of the COLING-ACL '98 (pp. 191-195). Philadelphia, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
6. Carletta, J. (1996). Assessing agreement on classification tasks: The Kappa statistic. Computational Linguistics, 22(2), 249-254.
7. Cohen, J. (1968). Weighted Kappa: Nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychological Bulletin, 70(4), 213-220.
8. Curran, J. (2002). Ensemble methods for automatic thesaurus extraction. Proceedings of the conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (pp. 222-229). Morristown, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics.
9. Dietterich, T. (2000). Ensemble methods in machine learning. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1857, 1-15.
10. Gwet, K. (2002). Kappa statistic is not satisfactory for assessing the extent of agreement between raters. Statistical Methods for Inter-rater Reliability Assessment, 1(April), 1-6.
11. Hand, D. (2006). Classifier technology and the illusion of progress. Statistical Science, 21(1), 1-14.
12. Hand, D., Mannila, H., & Smyth, P. (2001). Principles of data mining (adaptive computation and machine learning). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13. Hillard, D., Purpura, S., & Wilkerson, J. (2007). An active learning framework for classifying political text. Presented at the annual meetings of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, April.
14. Hopkins, D., & King, G. (2007). Extracting systematic social science meaning from text. Unpublished manuscript (Sept. 15, 2007), Center for Basic Research, Harvard University.
15. Joachims, T. (1998). Text categorization with support vector machines: Learning with many relevant features. In Proceedings of the European conference on machine learning (pp. 137-142). Chemnitz, Germany: Springer.
16. Jones, B. D., & Baumgartner, F. B. (2005). The politics of attention: How government prioritizes problems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17. King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
18. Kleinberg, J. (2002). An impossibility theorem for clustering. Proceedings of the 2002 Conference on Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 15, 463-470.
19. Koller, D., & Sahami, M. (1997). Hierarchically classifying documents using very few words. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Machine Learning, 170-78. San Francisco, CA: D. H. Fisher, & E. Morgan Publishers.
20. Laver, M., Benoit, K., & Garry, J. (2003). Estimating the policy positions of political actors using words as data. American Political Science Review, 97(2), 311-331.
21. Mann, G., Mimno, D., & McCallum, A. (2006). Bibliometric impact measures and leveraging topic analysis. Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (pp. 65-74). New York: Association for Computer Machinery.
22. Manning, C., & Shütze, H. (1999). Foundations of statistical natural language processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23. McCallum, A. (1996). Bow: A toolkit for statistical language modeling, text retrieval, classification and clustering. Available at http://www.cs.cmu.edu/mccallum/bow
24. Mitchell, T. (1997). Machine learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
25. Papineni, K. (2001). Why inverse document frequency? In Proceedings of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 1-8). Morristown, NJ: Association for Computing Machinery.
26. Poole, K., & Rosenthal, H. (1997). Congress: A politicaleconomic history of roll call voting. New York: Oxford University Press.
27. Porter, M. F. (1980). An algorithm for suffix stripping. Program, 16(3), 130-137.
28. Purpura, S., & Hillard, D. (2006). Automated classification of congressional legislation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Digital Government Research (pp. 219-225). New York: Association for Computer Machines.
29. Quinn, K., Monroe, B., Colaresi, M., Crespin, M., & Radev, D. (2006). An automated method of topiccoding legislative speech over time with application to the 105th-108th U.S. Senate. Presented at the Annual Meetings of the Society for Political Methodology, Seattle, WA.
30. Rohde, D. W. (2004). Roll call voting data for the United States House of Representatives, 1953-2004. Compiled by the Political Institutions and Public Choice Program, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. Available at http://crespin.myweb.uga.edu/pipcdata.htm
31. Schapire, R. E., & Singer, Y. (2000). Boostexter: A boosting based system for text categorization. Machine Learning, 39(2/3), 135-168.
32. Schrodt P., Davis, S., & Weddle, J. (1994). Political Science: KEDS-a program for the machine coding of event data. Social Science Computer Review, 12(4), 561-587.
33. Schrodt, P., & Gerner, D. (1994). Validity assessment of a machine-coded event data set for the Middle East, 1982-92. American Journal of Political Science, 38(3), 825-844.
34. Segal, J., & Spaeth, H. (2002). The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model revisited. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
35. Yang, Y., & Liu, X. (1999). A re-examination of text categorization methods. Proceedings of the ACM-SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. San Francisco, New York: Association for Computer Machinery.