A penny for your tweets: Campaign contributions and capitol hill microblogs

Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, ICWSM 2013

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 737-740

  Yano, Tae ^a   Yogatama, Dani ^a   Smith, Noah A ^a  

^a School of Computer Science Carnegie Mellon University ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CAPITOL HILL; COMPLEX MODEL; FINANCIAL INCENTIVES; LARGE CORPORA; MICROBLOGS; PREDICTIVE ACCURACY; PROFILE PREDICTION; SIMPLE MODELING;

SOCIAL NETWORKING (ONLINE);

EID: 84900397534     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (21)

1. Blei, D. M.; Ng, A. Y.; and Jordan, M. I. 2003. Latent Dirichlet allocation. JMLR 3:993-1022.
2. Boyd-Graber, J.; Chang, J.; Gerrish, S.; Wang, C.; and Blei, D. 2009. Reading tea leaves: How humans interpret topic models. In NIPS.
3. Eisenstein, J.; Smith, N. A.; and Xing, E. P. 2011. Discovering sociolinguistic associations with structured sparsity. In ACL.
4. Gayo-Avello, D. 2012. No, you cannot predict elections with twitter. IEEE Internet Computing 16(6):91-94.
5. Gerrish, S., and Blei, D. 2011. Predicting legislative roll calls from text. In Proc. of ICML.
6. Golbeck, J.; Grimes, J.; and Rogers, A. 2010. Twitter use by the U.S. congress. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 61(8).
7. Grimmer, J.; Messing, S.; and Westwood, S. 2012. How words and money cultivate a personal vote: The effect of legislator credit claiming on constituent credit allocation. American Political Science Review 106(4).
8. Grimmer, J. 2010. A Bayesian hierarchical topic model for political texts: Measuring expressed agendas in Senate press releases. Political Analysis 18(1).
9. Jungherr, A.; Jürgens, P.; and Schoen, H. 2012. Why the pirate party won the german election of 2009 or the trouble with predictions: A response to Tumasjan et al. Social Science Computer Review 30(2):229-234.
10. Kooti, F.; Yang, H.; Cha, M.; Gummadi, P. K.; and Mason, W. A. 2012. The emergence of conventions in online social networks. In ICWSM.
11. Lerman, K., and Ghosh, R. 2010. Information contagion: An empirical study of the spread of news on Digg and Twitter social networks. In ICWSM.
12. Minka, T. 2000. Estimating a Dirichlet distribution. http://bit.ly/ XTEJFu.
13. Nigam, K.; McCallum, A. K.; Thrun, S.; and Mitchell, T. 1999. Text classification from labeled and unlabeled documents using EM. Machine Learning 39:103-134.
14. O'Connor, B.; Balasubramanyan, R.; Routledge, B. R.; and Smith, N. A. 2010. From tweets to polls: Linking text sentiment to public opinion time series. In ICWSM.
15. Paul, M., and Dredze, M. 2010. You are what you tweet: Analyzing Twitter for public health. In ICWSM.
16. Quinn, K. M.; Monroe, B. L.; Colaresi, M.; Crespin, M. H.; and Radev, D. R. 2006. An automated method of topic-coding legislative speech over time with application to the 105th-108th U.S. Senate. Midwest Political Science Association Meeting.
17. Sakaki, T.; Okazaki, M.; and Matsuo, Y. 2010. Earthquake shakes Twitter users: real-time event detection by social sensors. In WWW.
18. Tumasjan, A.; Sprenger, T. O.; Sandner, P. G.; and Welpe, I. M. 2010. Predicting elections with Twitter: What 140 characters reveal about political sentiment. In ICWSM.
19. Wainwright, M. J., and Jordan, M. I. 2008. Graphical models, exponential families, and variational inference. Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning 1(1-2):1-305.
20. White, J. M., and Counts, S. 2012. Improving spatial models of political ideology by incorporating social network data. In Workshop on Information in Networks.
21. Yano, T.; Smith, N. A.; and Wilkerson, J. D. 2012. Textual predictors of bill survival in congressional committees. In NAACL.