Cited by 138Computational and Text Analysis MethodsText and Document Classification TechnologiesTopic Modeling

Computer-Assisted Topic Classification for Mixed-Methods Social Science Research

Hillard, Dustin, Purpura, Stephen, Wilkerson, John·2008·Journal of Information Technology & Politics

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

Crossref · 10.1080/19331680801975367

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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
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