The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Crowd-sourced Text Analysis: Reproducible and Agile Production of Political Data
Open accessAbstract
Empirical social science often relies on data that are not observed in the field, but are transformed into quantitative variables by expert researchers who analyze and interpret qualitative raw sources. While generally considered the most valid way to produce data, this expert-driven process is inherently difficult to replicate or to assess on grounds of reliability. Using crowd-sourcing to distribute text for reading and interpretation by massive numbers of nonexperts, we generate results comparable to those using experts to read and interpret the same texts, but do so far more quickly and flexibly. Crucially, the data we collect can be reproduced and extended transparently, making crowd-sourced datasets intrinsically reproducible. This focuses researchers’ attention on the fundamental scientific objective of specifying reliable and replicable methods for collecting the data needed, rather than on the content of any particular dataset. We also show that our approach works straightforwardly with different types of political text, written in different languages. While findings reported here concern text analysis, they have far-reaching implications for expert-generated data in the social sciences.
Overview
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.
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
Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk
Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpr057 · Cited by 4,008
Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk
Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500002205 · Cited by 3,767
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×
“This is related to, but quite distinct from, spectacular recent advances in automated text analysis that in theory scale up to unlimited volumes of political text (Grimmer and Stewart 2013).”
ResultConducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk
Mason, W., & Suri, S. (2012) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-011-0124-6 · Cited by 3,172
Data collection in a flat world: the strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples
Goodman, J. K., Cryder, C. E., & Cheema, A. (2013) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/bdm.1753 · Cited by 2,242 · cited 1×
“This is related to, but quite distinct from, spectacular recent advances in automated text analysis that in theory scale up to unlimited volumes of political text (Grimmer and Stewart 2013).”
ResultGALTON, F. (1907) · Nature · doi:10.1038/075450a0 · Cited by 1,080
Berinsky, A. J., Margolis, M. F., & Sances, M. W. (2014) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12081 · Cited by 951
Cited by
ChatGPT Outperforms Crowd-Workers for Text-Annotation Tasks
Gilardi, F., Alizadeh, M., & Kubli, M. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.15056 · Cited by 1,207
ChatGPT outperforms crowd workers for text-annotation tasks
Gilardi, F., Alizadeh, M., & Kubli, M. (2023) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2305016120 · Cited by 1,197
Conducting Clinical Research Using Crowdsourced Convenience Samples
Chandler, J., & Shapiro, D. (2016) · Annual Review of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-021815-093623 · Cited by 1,072
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
Word Embeddings: What Works, What Doesn’t, and How to Tell the Difference for Applied Research
Rodriguez, P. L., & Spirling, A. (2022) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1086/715162 · Cited by 254
Metadata
- Authors
- BENOIT, K., CONWAY, D., LAUDERDALE, B. E., LAVER, M., & MIKHAYLOV, S.
- Venue
- American Political Science Review
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2016-05
- Volume
- 110
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 278-295
- ISSN
- 0003-0554 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5943
- OpenAlex
- W632139601
- Cited by
- 295
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 147.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Crowd-sourced Text Analysis: Reproducible and Agile Production of Political Data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0003055416000058
- The paper
- BENOIT, K., CONWAY, D., LAUDERDALE, B. E., LAVER, M., & MIKHAYLOV, S. (2016). Crowd-sourced Text Analysis: Reproducible and Agile Production of Political Data. American Political Science Review. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055416000058
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.