MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406139743 · doi:10.7302/25077

Three Papers in the Applied Use of Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence Models for the Analysis of Political Text Data

2024· article· en· W4406139743 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDeep Blue (University of Michigan) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicComputational and Text Analysis Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceComputer sciencePoliticsData scienceNatural language processingPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This dissertation advances the frontier of computational political science by developing novel AI-driven methodologies for analyzing large-scale political discourse. It addresses three in- terconnected challenges in legislative and deliberative democracy research: 1) scaling quali- tative measurements, 2) mapping complex argumentative structures, and 3) enhancing text classification efficiency. The first study introduces a prompt-engineering framework leveraging large language models (LLMs) to automate the coding of deliberative quality in parliamentary speeches. I show that through a combination of detailed code book-style annotation instructions and examples drawn from a pre-validated collection of speeches, LLMs can achieve human-level performance when applying the Discourse Quality Index (DQI) to legislative debates from the US Congress. Building on this, the second study presents LegisGraph, a new approach combining LLMs with network science to represent legislative debates as structured argument graphs, where nodes represents speeches, speakers, arguments and topics, and edges capture relationships between them. Applying it to a representative corpus of Canadian parliamentary debates, I show how this method can be scaled to analyze large corpora of parliamentary debates, enabling analysis of a wide range of dynamics, including topic distribution, discourse quality trends, and patterns of polarization. The third study focuses on improving text classification efficiency by developing an algo- rithm that combines probabilistic modeling with active learning. By leveraging both labeled and unlabeled data, and focusing labeling efforts on challenging documents, this approach significantly reduces the need for labeled data while maintaining high classification accuracy. I demonstrate the effectiveness of this method through replication of two published studies with only a fraction of the original labeled data. Collectively, these studies demonstrate the transformative potential of AI in political com- munication research, offering scholars powerful tools to analyze vast corpora of political text with unprecedented depth and efficiency. This work lays the groundwork for new research that can shed light on the complexities of legislative and deliberative processes, informing policy-making and democratic governance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.854
Threshold uncertainty score0.774

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.109
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it