CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 20Social Media and PoliticsMisinformation and Its ImpactsHate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection

A Computational Analysis of Polarization on Indian and Pakistani Social Media

Open access
Tyagi, Aman, Field, Anjalie, Lathwal, Priyank, Tsvetkov, Yulia, Carley, Kathleen M.·2020·Lecture Notes in Computer Science
DOI 10.1007/978-3-030-60975-7_27
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-3-030-60975-7_27

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In rare instances of intergroup communication in online climate change discussions, more negative frames tended to prevail, including dismissal of climate change information as hoaxes, derailment of conversations to heated issues of identity, and overall higher levels of sarcasm and incivility.

    “Qualitative analysis further showed that in rare instances of intergroup communication, more negative frames tended to prevail, featuring dismissal of climate change information as hoaxes, derailment of conversations to heated issues of identity, as well as overall higher levels of sarcasm and incivility [8], [17], [18].”

    From Affective Polarization in Online Climate Change Discourse on Twitter (2020) · cites this paper as [17]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable, 1 not checked. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Online climate change discussions are interactionally polarized, exhibiting echo chamber-like homophilic interactions between Believers and Disbelievers.

    “In other words, online discussions about climate change are interactionally polarized, implying the persistence of echo chambers between Believers and Disbelievers [17]- [19].”

    From Affective Polarization in Online Climate Change Discourse on Twitter (2020) · cites this paper as [17]

    The Results and Analysis (p. 9) describe an echo chamber-like pattern: pro-India and pro-Pakistan Twitter users had little interaction across positions. The paper studies discussion of India–Pakistan tensions, however, not climate change or interactions between climate Believers and Disbelievers; it cannot establish that pattern for those groups. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Existing scholarship on climate change discourse has relied on manually annotated corpora and datasets of limited size, facing barriers to measuring the emotional component of climate change discussions in a generalizable fashion.

    “Relying consistently on manually annotated corpora and datasets of limited size, existing scholarship has faced barriers to measuring the emotional component of climate change discussions in a generalizable fashion [8], [17], [18].”

    From Affective Polarization in Online Climate Change Discourse on Twitter (2020) · cites this paper as [17]

    The Introduction (p. 1) and Discussion and Related Work (pp. 11–12) address polarization on Indian and Pakistani social media, not climate change discourse. Although the Discussion notes that some prior polarization methods require annotations, our copy does not address the claimed reliance on small, manually annotated climate-change datasets or barriers to measuring emotion in those discussions (searched: climate change, emotion, annotations, dataset size). (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. [5]5. Badawy, A., Ferrara, E., Lerman, K.: Analyzing the digital traces of political manipulation: The 2016 Russian interference Twitter campaign. In: Proc. of ASONAM. pp. 258-265 (2018)
  2. [11]11. Beskow, D.M., Carley, K.M.: Social cybersecurity: an emerging national security requirement. Military Review 99 (2), 117 (2019)
  3. [25]25. Ferragina, P., Piccinno, F., Santoro, R.: On analyzing hashtags in twitter. In: Proc. of ICWSM (2015)
  4. [26]26. Feyyaz, M.: Contextualizing the Pulwama attack in Kashmir-a perspective from Pakistan. Perspectives on Terrorism 13 (2), 69-74 (2019)
  5. [32]32. Kagan, V., Stevens, A., Subrahmanian, V.S.: Using Twitter sentiment to forecast the 2013 Pakistani election and the 2014 indian election. IEEE Intelligent Systems 30 (1), 2-5 (2015)
  6. [33]33. Khosla, S., Chhaya, N., Jindal, S., Saha, O., Srivastava, M.: Do events change opinions on social media? studying the 2016 US Presidential debates. In: Proc. of SocInfo. pp. 287-297 (2019)
  7. [36]36. Kumar, A., Dhamija, S., Dhamija, A.: Political marketing: The horizon of present era politics. SCMS Journal of Indian Management 13 (4), 116-125 (2016)
  8. [38]38. Le, H., Boynton, G., Shafiq, Z., Srinivasan, P.: A postmortem of suspended Twitter accounts in the 2016 US presidential election. In: Proc. of ASONAM. pp. 258-265 (2019)
  9. [46]46. Pandya, A.: The future of Indo-Pak relations after the Pulwama attack. Perspectives on Terrorism 13 (2), 65-68 (2019)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tyagi, A., Field, A., Lathwal, P., Tsvetkov, Y., & Carley, K. M.
Affiliations
Carnegie Mellon University (US)
Corresponding author
Tyagi, Aman
ORCID
Venue
Lecture Notes in Computer Science
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published
2020
Pages
364-379
ISSN
  • 0302-9743 (ISSN-L)
  • 1611-3349
DOI
10.1007/978-3-030-60975-7_27
OpenAlex
W3028356932
Cited by
20
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5
FWCI
13.91
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Lecture notes in computer science (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1745016)
  • Carnegie Mellon University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
Keywords
political polarization, Pulwama attack, Twitter, hashtags, label propagation, politicians, Bharatiya Janata Party, conflict escalation, social media discourse

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review