The DOI matches its Crossref record; 55 of the 55 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
That is your evidence?: Classifying stance in online political debate
Open accessOverview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Studies in this respect define stance as an overall position held by a person toward an object, idea, or position (Somasundaran and Wiebe 2009;Walker et al. 2012).”
From Detection and Resolution of Rumours in Social Media: A Survey (2019) · cites this paper as Walker et al. 2012
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Stance classification is well studied in online debates where the aim is to classify the user entries as "for" or "against."”
From Detection and Resolution of Rumours in Social Media: A Survey (2019) · cites this paper as Walker et al. 2012
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Opinion Mining and Sentiment Analysis
Pang, B., & Lee, L. (2008) · now publishers, Inc. eBooks · doi:10.1561/9781601981516 · Cited by 6,720
Opinion mining and sentiment analysis
Pang, B., & Lee, L. (2008) · Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval · doi:10.1561/1500000011 · Cited by 6,372
Variation across Speech and Writing
Biber, D. (1988) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511621024 · Cited by 5,227
Accurate unlexicalized parsing
Klein, D., & Manning, C. D. (2003) · Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics - ACL '03 · doi:10.3115/1075096.1075150 · Cited by 3,008
Generating Typed Dependency Parses from Phrase Structure Parses
de Marneffe, M.-C., MacCartney, B., & Manning, C. D. (2006) · Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC) · doi:10.63317/3wtkaidk6ea8 · Cited by 2,258
Crystal, D. (2001) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139164771 · Cited by 2,233
Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC): Pronounced “Luke,” . . . and Other Useful Facts
Chung, C. K., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2012) · Applied Natural Language Processing · doi:10.4018/978-1-60960-741-8.ch012 · Cited by 2,151
Advances in automatic text summarization
(2000) · Computers & Mathematics with Applications · doi:10.1016/s0898-1221(00)90017-8 · Cited by 681
Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC2007)
Pennebaker, J., Booth, R. J., & Francis, M. T. (2007) · ResearchSpace (University of Auckland) · Cited by 604
Cited by
Detection and Resolution of Rumours in Social Media: A Survey
Zubiaga, A., Aker, A., Bontcheva, K., Liakata, M., & Procter, R. (2019) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3161603 · Cited by 862
Metadata
- Authors
- Walker, M. A., Anand, P., Abbott, R., Tree, J. E. F., Martell, C., & King, J.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Santa Cruz (US)
- Naval Postgraduate School (US)
- Corresponding author
- Walker, Marilyn A.
- Venue
- Decision Support Systems
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2012-11
- Volume
- 53
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 719-729
- ISSN
- 0167-9236 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2159396192
- Cited by
- 104
- References
- 55
- Citations by year
- 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 6.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
- www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license (tdm)
- www.elsevier.com/open-access/userlicense/1.0/ (am, 201 d)
- Locations
- Decision Support Systems (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity
- Army Research Laboratory
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
- Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Computational and Text Analysis Methods
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
- Keywords
- stance detection, online political debate, subjective expression, ideological debate
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
