ArticleJournal of language and social psychology
Automating the Detection of Linguistic Intergroup Bias Through Computerized Language Analysis.
Article in Journal of language and social psychology. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Linguistic bias is the differential use of abstraction, or other linguistic mechanisms, for the same behavior by members of different groups. Abstraction is defined by the Linguistic Category Model (LCM), which defines a continuum of words from concrete to abstract. Linguistic Intergroup Bias (LIB) characterizes the tendency for people to use abstract words for undesirable outgroup and desirable ingroup behavior and concrete words for desirable outgroup and undesirable ingroup behavior. Thus, by examining abstraction in a text, we can understand the implicit attitudes of the author. Yet, research is currently stifled by the time-consuming and resource-intensive method of manual coding. In this study, we aim to develop an automated method to code for LIB. We compiled various techniques, including forms of sentence tokenization, sentiment analysis, and abstraction coding. All methods provided scores that were a good approximation of manually coded scores, which is promising and suggests that more complex methods for LIB coding may be unnecessary. We recommend automated approaches using CoreNLP sentiment analysis and LCM Dictionary abstraction coding.
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.