Computer-Assisted Topic Classification for Mixed-Methods Social Science Research
Abstract
Social scientists interested in mixed-methods research have traditionally turned to human annotators to classify the documents or events used in their analyses. The rapid growth of digitized government documents in recent years presents new opportunities for research but also new challenges. With more and more data coming online, relying on human annotators becomes prohibitively expensive for many tasks. For researchers interested in saving time and money while maintaining confidence in their results, we show how a particular supervised learning system can provide estimates of the class of each document (or event). This system maintains high classification accuracy and provides accurate estimates of document proportions, while achieving reliability levels associated with human efforts. We estimate that it lowers the costs of classifying large numbers of complex documents by 80% or more.
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 need to validate clusterings does not negate the value of unsupervised methods, nor does it make them a special case of supervised learning methods.
“The need to validate clusterings does not negate the value of unsupervised methods, nor does it lead to them becoming a special case of supervised learning methods (as suggested in Hillard, Purpura, and Wilkerson 2008).”
From Text as Data: The Promise and Pitfalls of Automatic Content Analysis Methods for Political Texts (2013) · cites this paper as Hillard, Purpura, and Wilkerson 2008
Ensembles are useful for increased out-of-sample stability and the ability to capture complex functional forms with relatively simple classifiers.
“But ensembles are also useful for other reasons, including: increased out-of-sample stability and the ability to capture complex functional forms with relatively simple classifiers (Dietterich 2000;Hillard, Purpura, and Wilkerson 2008).”
From Text as Data: The Promise and Pitfalls of Automatic Content Analysis Methods for Political Texts (2013) · cites this paper as Hillard, Purpura, and Wilkerson 2008
Cites
Ensemble methods in machine learning
Dietterich, T. G. (2000) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/3-540-45014-9_1 · Cited by 8,408 · see citing works
Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research
King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994) · Princeton University Press · doi:10.1515/9781400821211 · Cited by 7,225 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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 · 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
Monroe, B. L., Colaresi, M. P., & Quinn, K. M. (2008) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpn018 · Cited by 542 · see citing works
Automated Knowledge Organization AI ML based Subject Indexing System for Libraries
Ahmed, M., Mukhopadhyay, M., & Mukhopadhyay, P. (2023) · DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology · doi:10.14429/djlit.43.01.18619 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
- Authors
- Hillard, D., Purpura, S., & Wilkerson, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington (US)
- Cornell University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Wilkerson, John
- Venue
- Journal of Information Technology & Politics
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2008-05-15
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 31-46
- ISSN
- 1933-1681 (ISSN-L)
- 1933-169X
- OpenAlex
- W2032158738
- Cited by
- 138
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 38.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Information Technology & Politics (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Computational and Text Analysis Methods
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Text and Document Classification Technologies
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Keywords
- topic classification, mixed methods, supervised learning
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