Cited by 11Sentiment Analysis and Opinion MiningOpinion Dynamics and Social InfluenceHate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection

Social Media Analytics for Stance Mining A Multi-Modal Approach with Weak Supervision

Open access
Sumeet Kumar·2020·Carnegie Mellon University

Abstract

People express their opinions on blogs and other social media platforms. As per a recent estimate, interactions on Twitter alone result in over 500 million tweets perday. The magnitude of this data enables new applications of opinion mining that have previously remained challenging e.g., finding users’ stance (as in pro or con) on topics of interest. However, one of the major barriers to utilizing this amount of data is the cost of hand-labeling examples for machine learning. This barrier is even more apparent in stance mining, as opinions can change overtime and can be about any issues. To reduce the need for hand-labeled data by taking the complex interactions of social media users and their social influence into account, this dissertationdevelops semi-supervised methods for stance mining.Most existing studies on stance mining take a simplistic view that assumes a sentence (like a Tweet) holds a perspective that is independent of the context and the author’s network position. This approach to stance learning leaves three crucial unresolved challenges. First, how do we train stance-learning models on new topics with minimal labeling effort? Discussion topics change fast and new issues emerge, making it difficult to reuse prior labeled data. However, artifacts of social networks like hashtags can give noisy signal about the stance of users. To extract the signal from noise, I develop methods to find useful hashtags by exploiting how users in the pro-group and the anti-group u…

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.1184/r1/12352079

Cites

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?

  • Intergroup exposures in online communication trigger further incivility and toxicity.

    “Instead, research finds that these intergroup exposures trigger further incivility and toxicity [20].”

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

Cited by 11

Authors
Kumar, S.
Corresponding author
Sumeet Kumar
Venue
Carnegie Mellon University
Publisher
Carnegie Mellon University
Published
2020
OpenAlex
W6922113251
Cited by
11
References
0
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2
Type
dissertation
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Digital Eprints Services at ISB (DESI) (Indian School of Business) (acceptedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • KiltHub Repository
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
Keywords
sentiment analysis, weakly supervised learning, semi-supervised learning, hashtags, social influence, network alignment, co-training, retweets and likes, Twitter, controversial issues, stance prediction

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