ArticleScientific reports2024
Analyzing differences between discursive communities using dialectograms.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.