Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Sentiment and position-taking analysis of parliamentary debates: A systematic literature review

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1907.04126 v2 pith:RB24KGIV submitted 2019-07-09 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords analysisparliamentaryautomaticdebatesresearchreviewsentimentthey
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Parliamentary and legislative debate transcripts provide access to information concerning the opinions, positions and policy preferences of elected politicians. They attract attention from researchers from a wide variety of backgrounds, from political and social sciences to computer science. As a result, the problem of automatic sentiment and position-taking analysis has been tackled from different perspectives, using varying approaches and methods, and with relatively little collaboration or cross-pollination of ideas. The existing research is scattered across publications from various fields and venues. In this article we present the results of a systematic literature review of 61 studies, all of which address the automatic analysis of the sentiment and opinions expressed and positions taken by speakers in parliamentary (and other legislative) debates. In this review, we discuss the available research with regard to the aims and objectives of the researchers who work on these problems, the automatic analysis tasks they undertake, and the approaches and methods they use. We conclude by summarizing their findings, discussing the challenges of applying computational analysis to parliamentary debates, and suggesting possible avenues for further research.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The Deliberative Deficit: An Empirical Critique of LLMs in Democratic Discourse

    cs.MA 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Across 1,980 five-agent LLM runs on citizen-assembly topics, LLM groups match human procedural talk but show one-third the perspective diversity, weak topic-dependent consistency gains, and reversed convergence dynamics.

Pith tools