Cited by 112Computational and Text Analysis MethodsDigital Humanities and ScholarshipTopic Modeling

A Timely Intervention: Tracking the Changing Meanings of Political Concepts with Word Vectors

Rodman, Emma·2020·Political Analysis

Abstract

Word vectorization is an emerging text-as-data method that shows great promise for automating the analysis of semantics—here, the cultural meanings of words—in large volumes of text. Yet successes with this method have largely been confined to massive corpora where the meanings of words are presumed to be fixed. In political science applications, however, many corpora are comparatively small and many interesting questions hinge on the recognition that meaning changes over time. Together, these two facts raise vexing methodological challenges. Can word vectors trace the changing cultural meanings of words in typical small corpora use cases? I test four time-sensitive implementations of word vectors (word2vec) against a gold standard developed from a modest data set of 161 years of newspaper coverage. I find that one implementation method clearly outperforms the others in matching human assessments of how public dialogues around equality in America have changed over time. In addition, I suggest best practices for usingword2vecto study small corpora for time series questions, including bootstrap resampling of documents and pretraining of vectors. I close by showing thatword2vecallows granular analysis of the changing meaning of words, an advance over other common text-as-data methods for semantic research questions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/pan.2019.23

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 approach's performance compares favorably to the industry standard (Rodman 2020) in a study of a New York Times API corpus.

    “First, we demonstrate the strength of our approach by comparing its performance to the "industry standard" as laid out by Rodman (2020) in a study of a New York Times API corpus, where slow changes over long periods are the norm.”
  • Rodman (2020) tested four different methods by comparing results to the gold standard, and the chronologically trained model (Kim et al. 2014) was the best performer.

    “Rodman (2020) tests four different methods by comparing results to the gold standard; ultimately, the chronologically trained model (Kim et al. 2014) is the best performer.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rodman, E.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
Rodman, Emma
Venue
Political Analysis
Published
2019-07-25
Volume
28
Issue
1
Pages
87-111
ISSN
  • 1047-1987 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4989
OpenAlex
W2962802560
Cited by
112
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1
FWCI
27.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Political Analysis (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Computational and Text Analysis Methods
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Digital Humanities and Scholarship
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
Word2Vec, word embeddings, semantic change, political concepts, small corpora, time series analysis, media coverage, equality discourse, bootstrapping, text-as-data

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