A computational approach to qualitative analysis in large textual datasets

PLoS ONE

Volumn 9, Issue 2, 2014, Pages

  Evans, Michael S ^a  

^a Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DATA ANALYSIS; DATA MINING; DISCOURSE ANALYSIS; PUBLIC OPINION; PUBLICATION; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH;

BOOKS; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; DATA MINING; DATABASES, FACTUAL; EVALUATION STUDIES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; MODELS, STATISTICAL;

EID: 84896829576     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0087908     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Evans MS (2009) Defining the public, defining sociology: Hybrid science-public relations and boundary-work in early american sociology. Public Understanding of Science 18: 5-22.
2. Eden S, Donaldson A, Walker G (2006) Green groups and grey areas: Scientific boundary-work, nongovernmental organisations, and environmental knowledge. Environment and Planning A 38: 1061-1076. (Pubitemid 44018746)
3. Rodgers DM (2013) Insects, instincts and boundary work in early social psychology. History of the Human Sciences 26: 68-89.
4. Ferree MM, Gamson WA, Gerhards J, Rucht D (2002) Shaping Abortion Discourse: Democracy and the Public Sphere in Germany and the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5. Griffiths TL, Steyvers M (2004) Finding scientific topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101: 5228-5235. (Pubitemid 38469131)
6. Newman DJ, Block S (2006) Probabilistic topic decomposition of an eighteenth-century american newspaper. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 57: 753-767.
7. Grimmer J (2010) A bayesian hierarchical topic model for political texts: Measuring expressed agendas in senate press releases. Political Analysis 18: 1-35.
8. Grimmer J (2013) Appropriators not position takers: The distorting effects of electoral incentives on congressional representation. American Journal of Political Science 57: 624-642.
9. Blei DM (2012) Probabilistic topic models. Communications of the ACM 55: 77-84.
10. Blei DM, Ng AY, Jordan MI (2003) Latent dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research 3: 993-1022.
11. Griffiths TL, Steyvers M, Tenenbaum JB (2007) Topics in semantic representation. Psychological Review 114: 211-244.
12. McCallum AK (2002) Mallet: A machine learning for language toolkit. Availanble: http://mallet.cs.umass.edu.
13. Yao L, Mimno D, McCallum A (2009) Efficient methods for topic model inference on streaming document collections. In: Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. pp. 937-946.
14. AlSumait L, Barbará D, Gentle J, Domenico C (2009) Topic significance ranking of lda generative models. In: Buntine W, Grobelnik M, Mladenić D, Shawe-Taylor J, editors, Machine Leaning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases: ECML PKDD Proceedings, Part I, Berlin Heidelberg: Springer. pp. 67-82.
15. Mimno D, Wallach HM, Talley E, Leenders M, McCallum A (2011) Optimizing semantic coherence in topic models. In: Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Edinburgh, Scotland, UK: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 262-272.
16. Ramage D, Dumais S, Liebling D (2010) Characterizing microblogs with topic models. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, pp. 130-137.
17. Mellor F (2003) Between fact and fiction: Demarcating science from non-science in popular physics books. Social Studies of Science 33: 509-538.
18. Guston DH (1999) Stabilizing the boundary between us politics and science: The role of the office of technology transfer as a boundary organization. Social Studies of Science 29: 87-111.
19. Jasanoff S (1990) The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20. Gieryn TF (2008) Cultural boundaries: Settled and unsettled. In: Meusburger P, Welker M, Wunder E, editors, Clashes of Knowledge: Orthodoxies and Heterodoxies in Science and Religion, Dordrecht: Springer, chapter 3. pp. 91-99.
21. Wainwright SP, Williams C, Michael M, Farsides B, Cribb A (2006) Ethical boundary-work in the embryonic stem cell laboratory. Sociology of Health & Illness 28: 732-748.
22. Lee C, Skrentny JD (2010) Race categorization and the regulation of business and science. Law & Society Review 44: 617-650.
23. Gieryn TF (1983) Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from nonscience: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review 48: 781-95.
24. Solomon SM, Hackett EJ (1996) Setting boundaries between science and law: Lessons from daubert v. merrell dow pharmaceuticals, inc. Science, Technology & Human Values 21: 131-156.
25. Moore A, Stilgoe J (2009) Experts and anecdotes: The role of \anecdotal evidence" in public scientific controversies. Science, Technology & Human Values 34: 654-677.
26. Gieryn TF (1999) Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27. Derkatch C (2008) Method as argument: Boundary work in evidence based medicine. Social Epistemology 22: 371-388.
28. Waidzunas TJ (2013) Intellectual opportunity structures and science-targeted activism: Inuence of the ex-gay movement on the science of sexual orientation. Mobilization 18: 1-18.
29. Howard G (2004) Legitimating Astronomy. Ph.D. thesis, School of Social Science, Media, and Communication, University of Wollongong.
30. Zehr SC (2000) Public representations of scientific uncertainty about global climate change. Public Understanding of Science 9: 85-103.
31. Binder AJ (2007) Gathering intelligence on intelligent design: Where did it come from, where is it going, and how should progressives manage it? American Journal of Education 113: 549-576.
32. Jackson JP (2005) Science for Segregation: Race, Law, and the Case Against Brown V. Board of Education. New York: NYU Press.