Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39556542›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Panning for gold: Comparative analysis of cross-platform approaches for automated detection of political content in textual data.

Mykola Makhortykh, Ernesto de León, Aleksandra Urman, Teresa Gil-Lopez, Clara Christner, Maryna Sydorova, Silke Adam, Michaela Maier

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 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

8 authors.

Mykola MakhortykhInstitute of Communication and Media Studies, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-7143-5317
Ernesto de LeónInstitute of Communication and Media Studies, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Aleksandra UrmanSocial Computing Group, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Teresa Gil-LopezDepartment of Communication, University Carlos III of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-6376-0424
Clara ChristnerInstitute for Communication Psychology and Media Education, Rheinland-Pfälzische Technische Universität Kaiserslautern-Landau, Landau, Germany.
Maryna SydorovaInstitute of Communication and Media Studies, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Silke AdamInstitute of Communication and Media Studies, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Michaela MaierInstitute for Communication Psychology and Media Education, Rheinland-Pfälzische Technische Universität Kaiserslautern-Landau, Landau, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To understand and measure political information consumption in the high-choice media environment, we need new methods to trace individual interactions with online content and novel techniques to analyse and detect politics-related information. In this paper, we report the results of a comparative analysis of the performance of automated content analysis techniques for detecting political content in the German language across different platforms. Using three validation datasets, we compare the performance of three groups of detection techniques relying on dictionaries, classic supervised machine learning, and deep learning. We also examine the impact of different modes of data preprocessing on the low-cost implementations of these techniques using a large set (n = 66) of models. Our results show the limited impact of preprocessing on model performance, with the best results for less noisy data being achieved by deep learning- and classic machine learning-based models, in contrast to the more robust performance of dictionary-based models on noisy data.

Indexed as

PoliticsDeep LearningHumansMachine Learning

Identifiers

PMID39556542
PMCPMC11573140

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.