The Automatic Analysis of Emotion in Political Speech Based on Transcripts
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automatic sentiment analysis is used extensively in political science. The digitization of legislative transcripts has increased the potential application of established tools for the automated analyses of emotion in text. Unlike in writing, however, expressing emotion in speech involves intonation, facial expressions, and body language. Drawing on a new dataset of annotated texts and videos from the Canadian House of Commons, this paper does three things. First, we examine whether transcripts capture the emotional content of speeches. We find that transcripts capture sentiment, but not emotional arousal. Second, we compare strategies for the automated analysis of sentiment in text. We find that leading approaches performed reasonably well, but sentiment dictionaries generated using word embeddings surpassed these other approaches. Finally, we test the robustness of the approach based on word embeddings. Although the methodology is reasonably robust to alternative specifications, we find that dictionaries created using word embeddings are sensitive to the choice of seed words and to training corpus size. We conclude by discussing the implications for analyses of political speech.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it