A Timely Intervention: Tracking the Changing Meanings of Political Concepts with Word Vectors
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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.”
From Embedding Regression: Models for Context-Specific Description and Inference (2023) · cites this paper as Rodman (2020)
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.”
From Embedding Regression: Models for Context-Specific Description and Inference (2023) · cites this paper as Rodman (2020)
Cites
Harris, Z. S. (1954) · <i>WORD</i> · doi:10.1080/00437956.1954.11659520 · Cited by 4,807 · see citing works
Text as Data: The Promise and Pitfalls of Automatic Content Analysis Methods for Political Texts
Grimmer, J., & Stewart, B. M. (2013) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mps028 · Cited by 3,297 · cited 1× · see citing works
“I utilized a bag-of-words approach to these elements, which is standard in computational text analysis, breaking each text down into unigrams without reference to word order (Jurafsky andMartin 2009; Hopkins and King 2010; Grimmer and Stewart 2013).”
MethodMan is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddings
Bolukbasi, T., Chang, K.-W., Zou, J., Saligrama, V., & Kalai, A. (2016) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1607.06520 · Cited by 1,615 · see citing works
Word embeddings quantify 100 years of gender and ethnic stereotypes
Garg, N., Schiebinger, L., Jurafsky, D., & Zou, J. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1720347115 · Cited by 1,065 · see citing works
How to analyze political attention with minimal assumptions and costs
Quinn, K. M., Monroe, B. L., Colaresi, M., Crespin, M. H., & Radev, D. R. (2010) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00427.x · Cited by 671 · see citing works
Temporal Analysis of Language through Neural Language Models
Kim, Y., Chiu, Y.-I., Hanaki, K., Hegde, D., & Petrov, S. (2014) · Proceedings of the ACL 2014 Workshop on Language Technologies and Computational Social Science · doi:10.3115/v1/w14-2517 · Cited by 305 · see citing works
Large-Scale Computerized Text Analysis in Political Science: Opportunities and Challenges
Wilkerson, J., & Casas, A. (2017) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-052615-025542 · Cited by 300 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Embedding Regression: Models for Context-Specific Description and Inference
RODRIGUEZ, P. L., SPIRLING, A., & STEWART, B. M. (2023) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055422001228 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
“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.”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
- Authors
- Rodman, E.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington (US)
- Corresponding author
- Rodman, Emma
- ORCID
- Rodman, Emma
- Venue
- Political Analysis
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- 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