ArticlePloS one2024
Panning for gold: Comparative analysis of cross-platform approaches for automated detection of political content in textual data.
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.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.