Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 60 references

Sympathy over Polarization: A Computational Discourse Analysis of Social Media Posts about the July 2024 Trump Assassination Attempt

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The July 2024 attempt on Trump's life was followed by a broad, non-partisan rise in sentiment toward him on X, a pattern the authors read as sympathy rather than polarization.

desk verdict The descriptive sympathy finding is credible and useful; the DiD causal claim is not identified, so the paper should be reframed as a descriptive case study. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09950 v1 pith:I7RC4YEM submitted 2025-01-17 cs.SI cs.CL

Qingcheng Zeng , Guanhong Liu , Zhaoqian Xue , Diego Ford , Rob Voigt , Loni Hagen , Lingyao Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SIcs.CL
keywords assassinationattemptpublicsentimentdifference-in-differencessocialmediadiscoursesympathyvspolarizationLLManalysistopicmodelingDonaldTrump
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether a major political shock—the attempted assassination of Donald Trump on July 13, 2024—moved public attitudes in a unifying or a dividing direction. Analyzing 122,526 geotagged English X posts from the week before and after the event, the authors find that sentiment toward Trump rose sharply on the day of the shooting and settled at a level less negative than before. A difference-in-differences analysis (comparing how much each state group's sentiment changed after the event) shows a significant overall increase but no significant group-by-event interaction, meaning the shift was not concentrated in Republican-leaning or swing states. Topic modeling shows discussion moved away from Trump controversies and toward 'assassination' and 'Pray for Trump.' Together the results support a sympathy-style response over a polarization-style one.

What carries the argument

The analysis rests on a difference-in-differences framework in which states are split into red, blue, and swing groups based on a published 2024 battleground classification, and the outcome is a daily, state-level weighted average of LLM-annotated sentiment toward Trump. The key estimator is the coefficient on Group × Event in a regression with state-level controls: it captures whether the assassination attempt moved sentiment more in one partisan group than another. A parallel-trends t-test and a placebo test shifting the break to July 11 are used to support the design; the topic analysis uses BERTopic, a neural topic model, with UMAP and c-TF-IDF to construct umbrella topics before and after the event.

What would settle it

Fit the same DiD model using synthetic intervention dates from, say, June 29 through July 12; if sentiment was already climbing steadily and the July 13 coefficient merely continues that trend, the sympathy conclusion fails, while if July 13 is a clear outlier relative to the placebo distribution, it survives. A second check would rerun the analysis on posts about a neutral topic over the same dates to see whether a general positivity swing, not the event, drove the result.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the public response to the assassination attempt was broadly sympathetic rather than polarizing, despite baseline ideological and regional disparities. In all three difference-in-differences specifications, the Event coefficient is positive and significant, indicating a general increase in positive sentiment toward Trump after July 13, while the Group × Event interaction is not significant, indicating that red states did not shift more than blue states, nor swing states more than either. The paper interprets the absent interaction as evidence that the event did not trigger party affective polarization, and the topic shift—fewer posts on Trump controversies, many more on the shooting and prayers for him—as discourse-level support for the same conclusion.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that, without the shooting, sentiment in red, blue, and swing states would have followed the same path over time; because all states experienced the same national event and the placebo test shows a smaller but real rise before July 13, that premise is not directly testable from the data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • After July 13, sentiment toward Trump on X improved across red, blue, and swing states alike, with no group showing a significantly larger shift, so the event did not measurably deepen state-level partisan differences in expressed sentiment.
  • Discussion shifted sharply from 'Trump Controversies' and election talk toward 'Assassination' and 'Pray for Trump,' indicating that a personal crisis can temporarily redirect online political discourse away from criticism.
  • The absence of a significant group-by-event interaction in all three models is evidence against an affective-polarization response at the state level.
  • The results align with survey evidence that the assassination attempt reduced in-group support for partisan violence even while out-party hostility persisted.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper does not test this, but a rise in sentiment that begins before July 13 would undermine the causal claim; the positive and significant July 11 placebo coefficients are consistent with such a pre-trend.
  • The state-level aggregation could hide individual-level polarization; users within the same state might have moved in opposite directions and canceled out.
  • A longer observation window would reveal whether the sympathy bump decays as campaign events compete for attention, and whether the decline in controversy discourse is temporary.
  • The geotagged X sample may overrepresent certain user groups, so the same method applied to other platforms or to a demographically weighted sample would test the generality of the non-polarization finding.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes 122,526 geotagged English-language X posts containing "Trump" from July 7-20, 2024. It uses a GPT-4o-mini aspect-based sentiment classifier, validated against 300 human-annotated posts, to build state-day sentiment scores; difference-in-differences regressions compare red vs blue, swing vs red, and swing vs blue states; and BERTopic is used to identify ten umbrella topics before and after the assassination attempt. The main reported results are a post-event rise in sentiment toward Trump that is statistically significant in all three DiD models, no significant Group x Event interaction, and a topic shift away from "Trump Controversies" toward "Assassination" and "Pray for Trump". The paper interprets these patterns as evidence for the sympathy hypothesis and against polarization.

Significance. The descriptive before-after comparison and the topic shift are clearly presented and, conditional on the sentiment labels, appear robust: the classifier is benchmarked against human labels, the state-level patterns are consistent, and the null interaction result is a useful descriptive contribution to the no-polarization claim. If the causal interpretation were identified, the result would be a meaningful extension of Holliday et al. (2024) to social-media discourse. However, the central causal claim that the assassination attempt itself produced the sentiment increase is not identified by the current design, and the sentiment prompt partially encodes the hypothesis into the outcome measure. The descriptive findings are still valuable and can be presented as such.

major comments (3)
  1. [Data and Methods: Difference-in-differences modeling, Eq. (4), Table 3] The DiD specification has no unexposed control group: red, blue, and swing states all experienced the same national event, so the Event coefficient beta_2 is a common before-after contrast, not a treatment effect. The parallel-trend check in Eqs. (2)-(3) only compares mean pre-period slopes between groups; it does not test for the absence of a common time trend, which is the identifying assumption actually needed for beta_2 to be causal. As written, the Event coefficients (0.414-0.456) are compatible with any ongoing upward drift in sentiment toward Trump, so the RQ2 conclusion that the assassination attempt itself significantly affected public attitudes is unsupported by this model.
  2. [Data and Methods: Robustness check, Eq. (5), Table 4] The placebo test sets the break at July 11, which leaves the actual event inside the "post" period (July 12-20); the positive Placebo coefficients (0.283-0.304) are therefore partly mechanical consequences of the event itself. Worse, a significant placebo coefficient for the July 7-11 window is direct evidence of a pre-event upward trend, and the main Event coefficients are only about 0.12-0.15 larger than the placebo coefficients. The statement in the Robustness check paragraph that "the assassination attempt is the primary catalyst" is not supported by this test; a placebo break after the event, an event-study specification, or an explicit pre-trend sensitivity analysis is needed.
  3. [Appendix: Prompt Template for Sentiment Analysis] The prompt supplies the full assassination background and explicitly instructs that "Shows empathy toward Trump (e.g., well-wishing or prayers for recovery)" should be labeled positive, while the task asks for sentiment toward Trump. Because the outcome variable is constructed from these labels, the post-event increase in mean sentiment is partly determined by the coding scheme rather than by an independent measure of public sentiment. The paper should show that the main results hold when the prompt does not mention the assassination event or when empathy is scored separately from positive/negative valence, or should explicitly frame the outcome as "sympathy-coded sentiment" rather than neutral sentiment toward Trump.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figure 2] The y-axis of Figure 2 appears to run from 0.0 to 0.6 with no negative values, while the text reports pre-event mean sentiment around -0.55; please correct the axis labels and range.
  2. [Table 2] Table 2 reports t-statistics without degrees of freedom or p-values, so the claim that all p-values exceed 0.10 cannot be verified from the table; please report the full statistics.
  3. [Eq. (4)] The sentence introducing Controls is incomplete ("expressed as, including median income..."); please rewrite it to list the control variables and their standardization clearly.
  4. [Results: Robustness check] The phrase "it is fairly to conclude" should read "it is fair to conclude."
  5. [Appendix and Figures] There are rendering artifacts in the text, e.g., "/glyph1197ew Y ork", "/glyph1197umber", and "/glyph1197egative"; these should be fixed in the final source.
  6. [Data and Methods / Availability] No data or code availability statement is included; providing the Brandwatch query, annotation codebook, model version, and prompt version would substantially aid reproducibility.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Sentiment prompt defines empathy and prayers as positive, so the 'sympathy' finding is partly constructed by the outcome definition; the polarization result remains empirical.

  1. self definitional [Appendix: Prompt Template for Sentiment Analysis; operationalized in Data and Methods, 'Stance detection and validation' and Eq. (1)]
    "The definition of positive sentiments: Expresses approval, support, or praise for Trump, his actions, or his policies; Shows empathy toward Trump (e.g., well-wishing or prayers for recovery); Uses positive language, compliments, or expressions of agreement; Highlights perceived successes, achievements, or positive outcomes of his actions."

    The dependent variable in every analysis is the per-tweet sentiment label assigned by GPT-4o-Mini using this prompt and aggregated into the state-day sentiment score in Eq. (1). The prompt's 'positive' category explicitly includes empathy, well-wishing, and prayers for recovery. The paper's central conclusion—that the public response was 'broadly sympathetic to Trump'—therefore follows in part from the label definition: any increase in prayer or well-wishing posts mechanically raises the mean sentiment score because the prompt instructs the model to code those posts as positive. The RQ3 finding that the 'Pray for Trump' topic surges and carries high positive sentiment is a direct instance: that topic's positivity is guaranteed by the prompt, not independently discovered.

full rationale

The principal circular step is definitional: the sentiment measure used throughout is constructed from a prompt that defines empathy, well-wishing, and prayers as 'positive sentiment toward Trump.' Since the paper's headline claim is 'sympathy over polarization,' the sympathy component is partly baked into the outcome variable; observing a rise in positive sentiment then partly reduces to observing that sympathetic posts were labeled positive. This warrants a score above the low end. However, the circularity is partial rather than total. The 'rather than polarizing' conclusion rests on the insignificant Group x Event interaction, which is an empirical null result not entailed by the sentiment definition. The topic-volume findings (e.g., the surge in 'Pray for Trump' posts and decline in 'Trump Controversies') are also empirical. I did not score the DiD design as circular: the absence of an unexposed control group and the contaminated placebo break (July 11 leaves the actual event in the post period) are identification threats, not definitional reductions. The self-citations to prior work by the same author group (Li et al. 2024; Xian et al. 2024) are methodological references for topic modeling and are not load-bearing for the central claims. No uniqueness theorem or fitted-parameter-as-prediction pattern is present. Overall, one partially load-bearing self-definitional step in the sentiment construct yields a moderate circularity score of 5.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on measurement and design assumptions rather than on hand-fitted constants. The main fragility is the DiD identification assumption and the sentiment prompt, not on free parameters or invented entities.

free parameters (2)
  • Number of BERTopic clusters = 50
    Chosen by the elbow method; determines topic granularity but not the main sentiment trend.
  • Per-tweet sentiment score mapping = not stated (assumed -1, 0, +1)
    Equation (1) averages per-tweet scores S_i, but the numeric values for negative, neutral, and positive labels are never explicitly given.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Geo-tagged English X posts containing 'Trump' represent U.S. public discourse
    The dataset is restricted to 122,526 posts with state-level metadata; X users and geotagged posts are not representative of the US public, as acknowledged in Future Works.
  • domain assumption State partisanship classifications (red, blue, swing) are stable and correct for July 7-20, 2024
    All treatment and control divisions rely entirely on the Politico classifications reproduced in Table 1.
  • domain assumption The assassination attempt is the only significant shock in the two-week window
    The paper itself notes the July 15 J.D. Vance VP announcement as a competing event affecting topic volumes, so this assumption is partially violated.
  • domain assumption The LLM sentiment label is a valid measure of aspect-based sentiment toward Trump
    Validation uses only 300 manually annotated posts, and the prompt embeds the assassination background and defines empathy as positive.
  • ad hoc to paper DiD with red/blue/swing groups can identify the causal effect of a national event
    All states are exposed to the intervention, so the design estimates heterogeneous response, not a treatment effect relative to an unexposed control.
  • domain assumption Parallel trends hold in the pre-period
    Supported by pre-period slope t-tests, but the significant placebo coefficient suggests a pre-existing level trend that the design does not fully rule out.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sympathy over Polarization: A Computational Discourse Analysis of Social Media Posts about the July 2024 Trump Assassination Attempt." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I7RC4YEM

@misc{pith2026250109950,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sympathy over Polarization: A Computational Discourse Analysis of Social Media Posts about the July 2024 Trump Assassination Attempt},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I7RC4YEM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09950}
}
read the original abstract

On July 13, 2024, at the Trump rally in Pennsylvania, someone attempted to assassinate Republican Presidential Candidate Donald Trump. This attempt sparked a large-scale discussion on social media. We collected posts from X (formerly known as Twitter) one week before and after the assassination attempt and aimed to model the short-term effects of such a ``shock'' on public opinions and discussion topics. Specifically, our study addresses three key questions: first, we investigate how public sentiment toward Donald Trump shifts over time and across regions (RQ1) and examine whether the assassination attempt itself significantly affects public attitudes, independent of the existing political alignments (RQ2). Finally, we explore the major themes in online conversations before and after the crisis, illustrating how discussion topics evolved in response to this politically charged event (RQ3). By integrating large language model-based sentiment analysis, difference-in-differences modeling, and topic modeling techniques, we find that following the attempt the public response was broadly sympathetic to Trump rather than polarizing, despite baseline ideological and regional disparities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09950 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Performance evaluation of stance detection across different models. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Temporal evolution of public sentiment following [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Changes in the frequency of broad topic categories [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Sentiment scores by topics and types of states along time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Result of the Elbow method to determine the opti [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Geographic distribution of public sentiment before [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    D.; and Pischke, J.-S

    Angrist, J. D.; and Pischke, J.-S. 2009. Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    Anthropic. 2024. Claude 3.5 Sonnet. https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-3-5-sonnet

    2024

  5. [5]

    Atkeson, L.; and Maestas, C. 2012. Catastrophic Politics: How Extraordinary Events Redefine Perceptions of Government. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781107021129

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    Barbieri, F.; Camacho-Collados, J.; Neves, L.; and Espinosa-Anke, L. 2020. Tweeteval: Unified benchmark and comparative evaluation for tweet classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.12421

    arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Basu, S.; Meghani, A.; and Siddiqi, A. 2017. Evaluating the Health Impact of Large-Scale Public Policy Changes: Classical and Novel Approaches. Annual Review of Public Health, 38: 351--370

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Bennett, J.; Rachunok, B.; Flage, R.; and Nateghi, R. 2021. Mapping Climate Discourse to Climate Opinion: An Approach for Augmenting Surveys with Social Media to Enhance Understandings of Climate Opinion in the United States . PLOS ONE, 16(1): 1--16

    work page 2021

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    Besley, T.; and Case, A. 2002. Unnatural Experiments? Estimating the Incidence of Endogenous Policies. The Economic Journal, 112(476): F231--F246

    2002

  2. [10]

    Blank, G. 2017. The digital divide among Twitter users and its implications for social research. Social Science Computer Review, 35(6): 679--697

    2017

  3. [11]

    Blei, D. M. 2012. Probabilistic Topic Models. Communications of the ACM, 55(4): 77--84

    2012

  4. [12]

    Bollen, J.; Mao, H.; and Zeng, X.-J. 2011. Twitter Mood Predicts the Stock Market. Journal of Computational Science, 2(1): 1--8

    2011

  5. [13]

    Boutsikaris, L.; and Polykalas, S. 2024. A Comparative Review of Deep Learning Techniques on the Classification of Irony and Sarcasm in Text. IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, 1--15

    2024

  6. [14]

    Brody, R. A. 1991. Assessing the President: The Media, Elite Opinion, and Public Support. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Hardcover

    1991

  7. [15]

    Card, D.; and Krueger, A. B. 2000. Minimum Wages and Employment: A Case Study of the Fast-Food Industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania: Reply. The American Economic Review, 90(5): 1397--1420

    2000

  8. [16]

    Chanley, V. 2002. Trust in Government in the Aftermath of 9/11: Determinants and Consequences. Political Psychology, 23: 469--483

    2002

  9. [17]

    Conover, M.; Ratkiewicz, J.; Francisco, M.; Gon c alves, B.; Menczer, F.; and Flammini, A. 2011. Political Polarization on Twitter . In Proceedings of the Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, 89--96. AAAI Press

    2011

  10. [18]

    Dash, G.; Sharma, C.; and Sharma, S. 2023. Sustainable Marketing and the Role of Social Media: An Experimental Study Using Natural Language Processing ( NLP ). Sustainability, 15(6): 5443

    2023

  11. [19]

    DeepSeek-AI; Liu, A.; Feng, B.; Wang, B.; Wang, B.; Liu, B.; Zhao, C.; Dengr, C.; Ruan, C.; Dai, D.; Guo, D.; Yang, D.; Chen, D.; Ji, D.; Li, E.; Lin, F.; Luo, F.; Hao, G.; Chen, G.; Li, G.; Zhang, H.; Xu, H.; Yang, H.; Zhang, H.; Ding, H.; Xin, H.; Gao, H.; Li, H.; Qu, H.; Ca...

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Ferraz, C.; and Finan, F. 2008. Exposing Corrupt Politicians: The Effects of Brazil's Publicly Released Audits on Electoral Outcomes. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123(2): 703--745

    2008

  13. [21]

    Gao, Y.; Xiong, Y.; Gao, X.; Jia, K.; Pan, J.; Bi, Y.; Dai, Y.; Sun, J.; and Wang, H. 2023. Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10997

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Gilbert, R. 2013. Attempted Assassination and Presidential Achievement: The Case of Ronald Reagan. In The world of biology and politics: Organization and research areas (Research in Biopolitics, Vol. 11), 161--183. Emerald Group Publishing

    2013

  15. [23]

    Gonz \'a lez-Bail \'o n, S.; Wang, N.; Rivero, A.; Borge-Holthoefer, J.; and Moreno, Y. 2014. Assessing the bias in samples of large online networks. Social Networks, 38: 16--27

    2014

  16. [24]

    Grootendorst, M. 2022. BERTopic: Neural topic modeling with a class-based TF-IDF procedure. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.05794

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    M.; Fowler Jr., F

    Groves, R. M.; Fowler Jr., F. J.; Couper, M. P.; Lepkowski, J. M.; Singer, E.; and Tourangeau, R. 2009. Survey Methodology. Wiley Series in Survey Methodology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, second edition

    2009

  18. [26]

    Han, X.; and Wang, J. 2019. Using Social Media to Mine and Analyze Public Sentiment during a Disaster: A Case Study of the 2018 Shouguang City Flood in China. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 8(4): 185

    2019

  19. [27]

    Hetherington, M.; and Nelson, M. 2003. Anatomy of a Rally Effect: George W. Bush and the War on Terrorism . PS: Political Science and Politics, 36(1): 37--42

    2003

  20. [28]

    E.; Lelkes, Y.; and Westwood, S

    Holliday, D. E.; Lelkes, Y.; and Westwood, S. J. 2024. The July 2024 Trump assassination attempt was followed by lower in-group support for partisan violence and increased group unity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(49): e2414689121

    2024

  21. [29]

    T.-H.; and Tsai, R

    Hsu, J. T.-H.; and Tsai, R. T.-H. 2022. Increased Online Aggression During COVID-19 Lockdowns: Two-Stage Study of Deep Text Mining and Difference-in-Differences Analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 24(8): e38776

    2022

  22. [30]

    Huddy, L. 2003. Group identity and political cohesion. In Sears, D. O.; Huddy, L.; and Jervis, R., eds., Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, 511--558. Oxford University Press

    2003

  23. [31]

    Jelodar, H.; Wang, Y.; Yuan, C.; Feng, X.; Jiang, X.; Li, Y.; and Zhao, L. 2019. Latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) and topic modeling: models, applications, a survey. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 78(11): 15169--15211

    2019

  24. [32]

    N.; and Shehata, A

    Johansson, B.; Hopmann, D. N.; and Shehata, A. 2021. When the rally-around-the-flag effect disappears, or: when the COVID-19 pandemic becomes ``normalized''. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 31(sup1): 321--334

    2021

  25. [33]

    P.; Srinivasan, K.; and Ramesh, D

    Kumar, N. P.; Srinivasan, K.; and Ramesh, D. 2023. Analyzing Public Sentiment Towards LLM: A Twitter-Based Sentiment Analysis. In 2023 International Conference on the Confluence of Advancements in Robotics, Vision and Interdisciplinary Technology Management (IC-RVITM), 1--8

    2023

  26. [34]

    K.; and Deters, R

    Kumi, S.; Snow, C.; Lomotey, R. K.; and Deters, R. 2024. Uncovering Concerns of Citizens Through Machine Learning and Social Network Sentiment Analysis. IEEE Access, 12: 94885--94913

    2024

  27. [35]

    M.; and Lenz, G

    Ladd, J. M.; and Lenz, G. S. 2009. Exploiting a Rare Communication Shift to Document the Persuasive Power of the News Media. American Journal of Political Science, 53(2): 394--410

    2009

  28. [36]

    Li, L.; Ma, Z.; Fan, L.; Lee, S.; Yu, H.; and Hemphill, L. 2024. ChatGPT in education: A discourse analysis of worries and concerns on social media. Education and Information Technologies, 29(9): 10729--10762

    2024

  29. [37]

    Mackintosh, S. 2014. Crises and Paradigm Shift. The Political Quarterly, 85

    2014

  30. [38]

    A.; Blank, I

    Mahowald, K.; Ivanova, A. A.; Blank, I. A.; Kanwisher, N.; Tenenbaum, J. B.; and Fedorenko, E. 2024. Dissociating Language and Thought in Large Language Models. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 28(6): 517--540

    2024

  31. [39]

    H.; Wijaya, E.; et al

    Marutho, D.; Handaka, S. H.; Wijaya, E.; et al. 2018. The determination of cluster number at k-mean using elbow method and purity evaluation on headline news. In 2018 international seminar on application for technology of information and communication, 533--538. IEEE

    2018

  32. [40]

    McInnes, L.; Healy, J.; and Melville, J. 2018. Umap: Uniform manifold approximation and projection for dimension reduction. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.03426

    2018 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Mueller, J. E. 1970. Presidential Popularity from Truman to Johnson . American Political Science Review, 64(1): 18--34

    1970

  34. [42]

    O'Donoghue, G.; Debusmann, B.; and Murphy, M. 2024. Secret Service faces questions after Trump assassination attempt

    2024

  35. [43]

    OpenAI. 2024. Hello GPT-4o. OpenAI Blog

    2024

  36. [44]

    W.; and Simon, D

    Ostrom Jr., C. W.; and Simon, D. M. 1985. Promise and Performance: A Dynamic Model of Presidential Popularity. The American Political Science Review, 79(2): 334--358

    1985

  37. [45]

    Pandarachalil, R.; Sendhilkumar, S.; and Mahalakshmi, G. S. 2015. Twitter Sentiment Analysis for Large-Scale Data: An Unsupervised Approach. Cognitive Computation, 7: 254--262

    2015

  38. [46]

    Pang, B.; and Lee, L. 2008. Opinion Mining and Sentiment Analysis. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval, 2(1--2): 1--135

    2008

  39. [47]

    Pillemer, D. B. 2000. Momentous Events, Vivid Memories. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

    2000

  40. [48]

    POLITICO . 2024. Swing States 2024: Battleground States Map, List & Electoral Votes. Accessed: 2024-12-12

    2024

  41. [49]

    Putnam, R. D. 2007. E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century. The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture . Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(2): 137--174

    2007

  42. [50]

    L.; Bhuvaneswari, A.; and Kumudha, M

    Rachel J, J. L.; Bhuvaneswari, A.; and Kumudha, M. 2024. Topic Modeling Based Clustering of Disaster Tweets Using BERTopic. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM), 1--6

    2024

  43. [51]

    Reimers, N.; and Gurevych, I. 2019. Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics

    2019

  44. [52]

    Robertson, C. T. 2023. Here’s what our research says about news audiences on Twitter, the platform now known as X. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. https://reutersinstitute. polit i cs. ox. ac. uk/news/heres-what-our-research-says-abo ut-news-audiences-twitter-pl...

    2023

  45. [53]

    Rueda, M.; Grossman, G.; and Ge, S. 2023. Do More Disaggregated Electoral Results Deter Aggregation Fraud? Research Paper 2023-6, MIT Political Science Department

    2023

  46. [54]

    Sokol, J. 2018. The Heavens Might Crack: The Death and Legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. New York, NY: Basic Books, illustrated edition

    2018

  47. [55]

    Tajfel, H.; and Turner, J. C. 2004. The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior. In Jost, J. T.; and Sidanius, J., eds., Political Psychology: Key Readings, 276--293. Psychology Press

    2004

  48. [56]

    T \"o rnberg, P. 2024. Large Language Models Outperform Expert Coders and Supervised Classifiers at Annotating Political Social Media Messages. Social Science Computer Review, 0(0): 1--15

    2024

  49. [57]

    Whitlinger, C.; and Fretwell, J. 2019. Political Assassination and Social Movement Outcomes. Sociological Perspectives, 62(4): 455--474

    2019

  50. [58]

    Wing, C.; Simon, K.; and Bello-Gomez, R. 2018. Designing Difference in Difference Studies: Best Practices for Public Health Policy Research. Annual Review of Public Health, 39: 453--469

    2018

  51. [59]

    Z.; and Hemphill, L

    Xian, L.; Li, L.; Xu, Y.; Zhang, B. Z.; and Hemphill, L. 2024. Landscape of Large Language Models in Global English News: Topics, Sentiments, and Spatiotemporal Analysis. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, volume 18, 1661--1673

    2024

  52. [60]

    Ziems, C.; Held, W.; Shaikh, O.; Chen, J.; Zhang, Z.; and Yang, D. 2024. Can Large Language Models Transform Computational Social Science? Computational Linguistics, 50(1): 237--291

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.