Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39341828›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Analyzing differences between discursive communities using dialectograms.

Thyge Enggaard, August Lohse, Morten Axel Pedersen, Sune Lehmann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Thyge EnggaardCopenhagen Center for Social Data Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
August LohseCopenhagen Center for Social Data Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. al@augustlohse.com.
Morten Axel PedersenCopenhagen Center for Social Data Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Sune LehmannCopenhagen Center for Social Data Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

H2020 European Research Council 834540Villum Fonden Synergy grant (SL)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Word embeddings provide an unsupervised way to understand differences in word usage between discursive communities. A number of papers have focused on identifying words that are used differently by two or more communities. But word embeddings are complex, high-dimensional spaces and a focus on identifying differences only captures a fraction of their richness. Here, we take a step towards leveraging the richness of the full embedding space, by using word embeddings to map out how words are used differently. Specifically, we describe the construction of dialectograms, an unsupervised way to visually explore the characteristic ways in which each community uses a focal word. Based on these dialectograms, we provide a new measure of the degree to which words are used differently that overcomes the tendency for existing measures to pick out low-frequency or polysemous words. We apply our methods to explore the discourses of two US political subreddits and show how our methods identify stark affective polarisation of politicians and political entities, differences in the assessment of proper political action as well as disagreement about whether certain issues require political intervention at all.

Indexed as

LanguageHumansPolitics

Identifiers

PMID39341828
PMCPMC11438868

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.