pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.20604 · v1 · pith:FU5FMXWNnew · submitted 2026-05-21 · 💻 cs.CY

Using machine learning to build public policy agenda from social media conversations

Rahman Sanya This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-30 16:23 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CY
keywords machine learningpublic policysocial mediatopic modelingnatural language generationagenda settingissue identification
0
0 comments X

The pith

A five-stage human-augmented machine learning process can identify issues of public interest from social media conversations to form policy agendas.

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

The paper sets out a repeatable sequence of data cleaning, topic modeling, narrative generation, and dual validation steps that turns raw social media posts into readable agenda items. Traditional agenda-setting work relies on slow, expensive manual collection that does not scale; the new sequence uses existing online talk instead. Experiments on Twitter data with LDA and Top2Vec for topics plus GPT-2 for text show human raters reach good agreement on readability and coherence while cosine scores stay above average against reference themes. If the sequence holds, policy teams could monitor public concerns across large regions without repeated surveys.

Core claim

The authors describe a human-augmented machine learning approach with five stages: input data cleaning and preprocessing, keywords extraction and issue identification, narrative creation, narrative validation, and agenda validation. On a Twitter dataset, LDA and Top2Vec produced topics, GPT-2 generated narratives, and both similarity analysis and human evaluation produced very good and good inter-rater agreement on readability and coherence plus good agreement on agenda items, with above-average cosine similarity on at least three reference themes. The authors conclude these results show the approach is a promising methodology for identifying matters of public interest from social media conv

What carries the argument

The five-stage human-augmented pipeline that pairs topic modeling for issue detection with natural language generation for narrative creation, then applies similarity checks and human ratings for validation.

If this is right

  • Agenda-setting work that now depends on costly manual data collection can be supplemented by automated processing of existing social media streams.
  • The same sequence can be run over large geographic areas without proportional increases in labor or expense.
  • Validation steps that combine inter-rater agreement with cosine similarity can serve as practical checks on output quality for policy use.
  • The method can be rerun periodically to track shifts in public concerns without new data-collection campaigns.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The pipeline could be tested on data from other platforms to check whether platform-specific language affects the quality of generated agendas.
  • Generated agendas could be compared directly with official government consultation documents to measure how well they align with stated policy priorities.
  • Replacing or combining the topic models and generator with newer alternatives might raise the similarity and agreement scores further.
  • Real-time versions of the pipeline could feed live dashboards that alert officials to emerging public issues before they appear in traditional channels.

Load-bearing premise

That human ratings of readability and coherence plus similarity to chosen reference texts are enough to prove the outputs capture genuine public interests rather than model artifacts or the references themselves.

What would settle it

Independent raters score the generated agenda items against separate public-opinion survey results on the same topics and find low overlap in the issues raised.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.20604 by Rahman Sanya.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Human-augmented ML pipeline for generating pub [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Example uncleaned tweets from our dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: shows histogram plot for tweet character length. The results show that tweet character length is skewed to the right. What this means is that a large proportion of tweets tended to exploit the maximum allowable character length of 280. A frequency plot for hashtags in our data set is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Frequency plot for top 30 hashtags that trended on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top 20 frequently occurring trigrams in our Twitter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The top 20 frequently used words in our Twitter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Topic distribution across tweets in our dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Dominant topic in each tweet and its percentage [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Most representative tweet for each LDA topic ex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Word clouds of top 50 keywords in Topic 26 and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Document (i.e., tweet) identifier, cosine similarity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_13.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Issue identification and agenda setting represents an important stage in the public policy making process. Traditional approaches for carrying out activities under this stage are time- and labor-intensive on data collection and analysis, in addition to being costly to scale over large geographic areas. In this work we propose a human-augmented machine learning (ML) approach for identifying matters of public interest from social media conversations. The approach consists of five stages namely, input data cleaning and preprocessing, keywords extraction and issue identification, narrative creation, narrative validation, and agenda validation. We implemented experiments to validate the output of our method based on a Twitter dataset and using Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) and Top2Vec for topic modeling. Natural Language Generation (NLG) was achieved using GPT-2 while narrative and agenda validation were based on similarity analysis and human evaluation. We achieved "very good" and "good" inter-rater agreement (IRA) on readability and coherence of agenda narrative generation by our GPT-2 model. On the other hand, IRA was "good" for generated agenda items. We also achieved above average cosine similarity score on at least three out of five reference text (narrative) themes. These results demonstrate that the ML approach represents a promising methodology for identifying issues of public interest from social media conversations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a five-stage human-augmented ML pipeline (data cleaning/preprocessing, keywords/issue identification via LDA and Top2Vec, narrative creation with GPT-2, narrative validation, agenda validation) to extract public policy agendas from Twitter conversations; it reports 'very good'/'good' inter-rater agreement on readability/coherence of generated narratives and 'good' IRA on agenda items, plus above-average cosine similarity on at least three of five reference texts, and concludes that the approach is a promising methodology for identifying matters of public interest.

Significance. A method that reliably extracts policy-relevant issues at scale from social media would be a useful complement to traditional agenda-setting techniques, but the reported results only demonstrate surface fluency and overlap with chosen references rather than fidelity to the input corpus or external indicators of public interest.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract (and narrative/agenda validation stages): the reported IRA scores and cosine similarities evaluate readability, coherence, and lexical overlap with five reference texts but supply no test of whether the generated narratives or agenda items accurately reflect issues present in the Twitter data (e.g., via ablation, corpus reconstruction, or comparison to contemporaneous polls/policy records), which is required to support the central claim.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: no dataset size, preprocessing steps, model hyperparameters, exclusion criteria, or statistical tests are described, so the 'very good' and 'good' IRA values and 'above average' cosine scores cannot be evaluated or reproduced.
  3. [Narrative validation and agenda validation stages] Narrative validation and agenda validation stages: reliance on human ratings of surface properties and similarity to external reference texts leaves open whether outputs are artifacts of the topic models or GPT-2 fine-tuning rather than genuine public-interest signals from the conversations.
minor comments (1)
  1. The five stages are named in the abstract but their concrete implementation details (e.g., exact keyword extraction procedure, how GPT-2 was prompted or fine-tuned) would benefit from an explicit methods subsection or pseudocode for reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on validation and reproducibility. We address each major comment below and outline revisions to strengthen the paper's claims regarding fidelity to the Twitter corpus.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (and narrative/agenda validation stages): the reported IRA scores and cosine similarities evaluate readability, coherence, and lexical overlap with five reference texts but supply no test of whether the generated narratives or agenda items accurately reflect issues present in the Twitter data (e.g., via ablation, corpus reconstruction, or comparison to contemporaneous polls/policy records), which is required to support the central claim.

    Authors: We agree that the current validation focuses on surface properties and reference overlap rather than direct fidelity to the input corpus. In revision we will add an ablation experiment (topic modeling removed) and report cosine similarity between generated narratives and a sample of original tweets to demonstrate grounding in the data. We will also add a brief qualitative mapping of extracted agenda items to contemporaneous policy records where available. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: no dataset size, preprocessing steps, model hyperparameters, exclusion criteria, or statistical tests are described, so the 'very good' and 'good' IRA values and 'above average' cosine scores cannot be evaluated or reproduced.

    Authors: The Methods section contains the dataset size (Twitter corpus details), preprocessing pipeline, LDA/Top2Vec hyperparameters, and exclusion criteria; IRA was computed with Fleiss' kappa. We will expand the abstract to include these summary statistics and explicitly name the agreement metric and significance testing so that the reported scores can be evaluated from the abstract alone. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Narrative validation and agenda validation stages] Narrative validation and agenda validation stages: reliance on human ratings of surface properties and similarity to external reference texts leaves open whether outputs are artifacts of the topic models or GPT-2 fine-tuning rather than genuine public-interest signals from the conversations.

    Authors: The topic models are trained exclusively on the Twitter corpus and GPT-2 is conditioned on the resulting topic keywords; human raters were shown the source tweets alongside generated text. To further rule out artifacts we will add a quantitative check (average embedding similarity between generated narratives and held-out tweets from the same topics) and report it in the validation section. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; pipeline and validation are independent of inputs

full rationale

The paper presents a five-stage pipeline (data cleaning, topic modeling with LDA/Top2Vec, GPT-2 narrative generation, similarity analysis, human evaluation) whose outputs are assessed via external human inter-rater agreement on readability/coherence and cosine similarity to chosen reference texts. No equations, fitted parameters, self-citations, or ansatzes are described that would reduce any reported performance metric or conclusion to the input data or model choices by construction. The central claim therefore rests on independent external checks rather than definitional equivalence or self-referential fitting.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review supplies no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; topic-modeling and language-model components are treated as black-box tools from prior literature.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5752 in / 1050 out tokens · 32788 ms · 2026-06-30T16:23:59.709474+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Using machine learning to build public policy agenda from social media conversations

    INTRODUCTION Issue identification and agenda setting is the first, and one of the most important phases in the public policy making process. During this phase, important social problems affecting society are identified and considered for placement onto the public policy agenda. A public policy may be defined as the set of plans, courses of action, and dec...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    We propose an approach based on ML for building public policy agenda from social media conversations. A ma- jor benefit of the proposed approach is that it allows for efficient generation and processing of large quantities of policy-related input data from a wide range of sources from the Web. This work thus demonstrates that ML methods can be used to com...

  3. [3]

    The pipeline consists of five stages namely: data cleaning and pre-processing, key- words extraction, narrative text generation, narrative text validation, and agenda validation

    An end-to-end ML pipeline is proposed for semi-automated (i.e., human-augmented) public policy agenda building based on social media data sets. The pipeline consists of five stages namely: data cleaning and pre-processing, key- words extraction, narrative text generation, narrative text validation, and agenda validation

  4. [4]

    A proof-of-concept ML model has been developed to vali- date the output of our proposed approach in 1) above. Based on input data from Twitter and using Uganda’s 2020 / 2021 general elections as case study, the model provides useful insight on social issues raised by members of the general public during the elections period. The rest of this paper is orga...

    2020

  5. [5]

    Results, discussion, and conclusion are found in Sections 4, 5, and 6, respectively

  6. [6]

    In this section we review recent literature with a focus on three things: application domain and/or task, ML method(s) used, and data sources

    RELATED WORK In the recent past, ML methods in conjunction with social media, Web, or other publicly available data sources have been applied on diverse tasks to solve real-world problems. In this section we review recent literature with a focus on three things: application domain and/or task, ML method(s) used, and data sources. Public health is one of t...

  7. [7]

    Uganda had a projected population of 41.5 million people as of year 2020 [57]

    MATERIALS AND METHODS 3.1 Materials 3.1.1 Study area and context The study area for this work is Uganda, a low-income country in Sub-Sahara Africa. Uganda had a projected population of 41.5 million people as of year 2020 [57]. According to the website www.datareportal.com [25] there were 2.5 million social media users in Uganda by January 2020, putting pe...

    2020

  8. [8]

    Unlike the latter two methods, top2vec has the benefit of discovering topics that are more informative and representative of the data set it is trained on

    and doc2vec [30]. Unlike the latter two methods, top2vec has the benefit of discovering topics that are more informative and representative of the data set it is trained on. Training a top2vec model requires three configuration settings includ- ing document (the input corpus), workers (number of worker threads), and speed. The latter configuration determi...

  9. [9]

    Agriculture minis- ter intervenes as BHC asks government to consider increasing funding for the sector

    and word clouds. Text generation (or narrative creation) The goal of this stage is to produce human interpretable text paragraphs (i.e., narratives or short stories) that convey mean- ingful sentiments about an issue of public concern. Our inter- est and strategy is that given a keyword or phrase, the model should be able to create grammatically correct a...

    2020

  10. [10]

    Example tweets taken from our dataset are shown in Figure 2

    RESULTS 4.1 Dataset Our final data set consists of a total 12,272 uncleaned tweets after removing retweets i.e., tweets with the tag RT. Example tweets taken from our dataset are shown in Figure 2. As can be seen in the figure, the uncleaned tweets contain unwanted elements such as symbols, emoticons, numbers, punctuation marks, etc. These and other unwan...

  11. [11]

    brutality

    The top three hashtags in this dataset include #UgV otes2021, #NBSUpdates, and #NBSPoliticom. However, at least three hashtags associated with matters of public interest also trended in our dataset, for example #WearAMask, #StaySafeUG, and #COVID19. Figure 5 shows the bar plot for top 20 frequently used terms/words in our Twitter dataset. The results show...

    2020

  12. [12]

    very good

    DISCUSSION The goal of this work was to apply machine learning methods to the task of identifying issues from social media conversa- tions for inclusion in public policy agenda. To achieve this goal, we proposed a 5-stage human-augmented ML pipeline that takes as input social media data that undergoes pre- processing before topic modeling is applied to ex...

    work page arXiv 2020

  13. [13]

    CONCLUSION In this work we propose a ML-based human-augmented ap- proach for generating public policy agenda from social media conversations. The approach consists of 5 stages namely, input data cleaning and pre-processing, keyword extraction and is- sue identification, text generation, text validation, and agenda validation. Empirical results from our wo...

  14. [14]

    Taufiq Ahmad, Aima Alvi, and Muhammad Ittefaq

  15. [15]

    The Use of Social Media on Political Participation Among University Students: An Analysis of Survey Results From Rural Pakistan.SAGE Open9, 3 (2019), 2158244019864484.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2158244019864484

    work page doi:10.1177/2158244019864484 2019

  16. [16]

    Douglas G. Altman. 2006.Practical Statistics for Medical Research. Chapman & Hall/CRC

    2006

  17. [17]

    David Alvarez-Melis and Martin Saveski. 2016. Topic Modeling in Twitter: Aggregating Tweets by Conversations. (2016). Association for the Advancement of ArtificialIntelligence

    2016

  18. [18]

    Dimo Angelov. 2020. Top2Vec: Distributed Representations of Topics. (2020)

    2020

  19. [19]

    Satanjeev Banerjee and Alon Lavie. 2005. METEOR: An Automatic Metric for MT Evaluation with Improved Correlation with Human Judgments. InProceedings of the ACL Workshop on Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evaluation Measures for Machine Translation and/or Summarization. Association for Computational Linguistics, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 65–72. https://www.aclweb.org/a...

    2005

  20. [20]

    Anya Belz and Ehud Reiter. 2006. Comparing Automatic and Human Evaluation of NLG Systems

    2006

  21. [21]

    Blei, Andrew Y

    David M. Blei, Andrew Y . Ng, and Michael I. Jordan

  22. [22]

    https://jmlr.org/papers/volume3/blei03a/blei03a.pdf

    Latent Dirichlet Allocation.Journal of machine Learning research3 (January 2003), 993–1022. https://jmlr.org/papers/volume3/blei03a/blei03a.pdf

    2003

  23. [23]

    Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-V oss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwi...

    2020

  24. [24]

    Joanna Burzy ´nska, Anna Bartosiewicz, and Magdalena R˛ ekas. 2020. The social life of COVID-19: Early insights from social media monitoring data collected in Poland.Health Informatics Journal26, 4 (2020), 3056–3065.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1460458220962652PMID: 33050772

    work page doi:10.1177/1460458220962652pmid: 2020

  25. [25]

    Andrea Ceron, Luigi Curini, and Stefano M. Iacus. 2019. ISIS at Its Apogee: The Arabic Discourse on Twitter and What We Can Learn From That About ISIS Support and Foreign Fighters.SAGE Open9, 1 (2019), 2158244018789229.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2158244018789229

    work page doi:10.1177/2158244018789229 2019

  26. [26]

    Matteo Cinelli, Walter Quattrociocchi, Alessandro Galeazzi, Carlo Michele Valensise, Emanuele Brugnoli, Ana Lucia Schmidt, Paola Zola, Fabiana Zollo, and Antonio Scala. 2020. The COVID-19 social media infodemic.Nature Scientific Reports10, 16598 (2020) (April 2020).DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-73510-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-020-73510-5 2020

  27. [27]

    Roger Cobb, Jennie-Keith Ross, and Marc Howard Ross

  28. [28]

    Agenda Building as a Comparative Political Process.The American Political Science Review70, 1 (1976), 126–138.http://www.jstor.org/stable/1960328

    work page arXiv 1976

  29. [29]

    Dearing and Everett Rogers

    James W. Dearing and Everett Rogers. 1997. Agenda-Setting. V ol. 6. SAGE Publications, Inc

    1997

  30. [30]

    Lei Deng, Bingying Xu, Lumin Zhang, Yi Han, Bin Zhou, and Peng Zou. 2013. Tracking the Evolution of Public Concerns in Social Media. InProceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Internet Multimedia Computing and Service (ICIMCS ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY , USA, 353–357. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2499788.2499826

    work page doi:10.1145/2499788.2499826 2013

  31. [31]

    Anjie Fang, Philip Habel, Iadh Ounis, and Craig MacDonald. 2019. V otes on Twitter: Assessing Candidate Preferences and Topics of Discussion During the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election.SAGE Open9, 1 (2019), 2158244018791653.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2158244018791653

    work page doi:10.1177/2158244018791653 2019

  32. [32]

    Fabio Gasparetti. 2017. Modeling User Interests from Web Browsing Activities.Data Min. Knowl. Discov.31, 2 (March 2017), 502–547.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10618-016-0482-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s10618-016-0482-x 2017

  33. [33]

    Albert Gatt and Emiel Krahmer. 2018. Survey of the State of the Art in Natural Language Generation: Core Tasks, Applications and Evaluation.J. Artif. Int. Res.61, 1 (Jan. 2018), 65–170

    2018

  34. [34]

    Sarah Giest and Annemarie Samuels. 2020. ’For good measure’: data gaps in a big data world.Policy Sciences 53, 2020 (April 2020), 559–569.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11077-020-09384-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s11077-020-09384-1 2020

  35. [35]

    Mohebbi, Rajan S

    Jeremy Ginsberg, Matthew H. Mohebbi, Rajan S. Patel, Lynnette Brammer, Mark S. Smolinski, and Larry Brilliant. 2009. Detecting influenza epidemics using search engine query data.Nature457 (Feb. 2009).DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature07634

    work page doi:10.1038/nature07634 2009

  36. [36]

    Daniel Hunt. 2020. How food companies use social media to influence policy debates: a framework of Australian ultra-processed food industry Twitter data. Public Health Nutrition(2020), 1–12.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1368980020003353

    work page doi:10.1017/s1368980020003353 2020

  37. [37]

    Karoliina Isoaho, Daria Gritsenko, and Eetu Mäkelä

  38. [38]

    Topic Modeling and Text Analysis for Qualitative Policy Research.Policy Studies Journal49, 1 (2021), 300–324.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12343

    work page doi:10.1111/psj.12343 2021

  39. [39]

    Zhiwei Jin, Juan Cao, Han Guo, Yongdong Zhang, Yu Wang, and Jiebo Luo. 2017. Detection and Analysis of 2016 US Presidential Election Related Rumors on Twitter. InInternational Conference on Social Computing, Behavioral-Cultural Modeling and Prediction and Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, V ol. 10354. Springer, Cham, 14–24. DOI:http://dx...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-60240-0_2 2017

  40. [40]

    Jordan, James W

    Kayla N. Jordan, James W. Pennebaker, and Chase Ehrig. 2018. The 2016 U.S. Presidential Candidates and How People Tweeted About Them.SAGE Open8, 3 (2018), 2158244018791218.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2158244018791218

    work page doi:10.1177/2158244018791218 2018

  41. [41]

    Fatemeh Kaveh-Yazdy and Sajjad Zarifzadeh. 2021. Track Iran’s national COVID-19 response committee’s major concerns using two-stage unsupervised topic modeling.International Journal of Medical Informatics 145 (2021), 104309.DOI:http://dx.doi.org/https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2020.104309

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2020.104309 2021

  42. [42]

    Simon Kemp. 2020. Digital 2020: Uganda. Website. (February 2020). https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2020-uganda

    2020

  43. [43]

    Masha Krupenkin, David Rothschild, Shawndra Hill, and Elad Yom-Tov. 2019. President Trump Stress Disorder: Partisanship, Ethnicity, and Expressive Reporting of Mental Distress After the 2016 Election. SAGE Open9, 1 (2019), 2158244019830865.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2158244019830865

    work page doi:10.1177/2158244019830865 2019

  44. [44]

    Wojciech Kry ´sci´nski, Nitish Shirish Keskar, Bryan McCann, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2019. Neural Text Summarization: A Critical Evaluation. (2019)

    2019

  45. [45]

    Richard Landis and Gary G

    Richard J. Landis and Gary G. Koch. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics33, 1 (March 1977), 159–174.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2529310

    work page doi:10.2307/2529310 1977

  46. [46]

    Alon Lavie and Abhaya Agarwal. 2007. Meteor: An Automatic Metric for MT Evaluation with High Levels of Correlation with Human Judgments. InProceedings of the Second Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation (StatMT ’07). Association for Computational Linguistics, USA, 228–231

    2007

  47. [47]

    Le and Tomas Mikolov

    Quoc V . Le and Tomas Mikolov. 2014. Distributed Representations of Sentences and Documents. (2014)

    2014

  48. [48]

    Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2019. BART: Denoising Sequence-to-Sequence Pre-training for Natural Language Generation, Translation, and Comprehension.CoRRabs/1910.13461 (2019). http://arxiv.org/abs/1910.13461

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  49. [49]

    Chia-Wei Liu, Ryan Lowe, Iulian Serban, Mike Noseworthy, Laurent Charlin, and Joelle Pineau. 2016. How NOT To Evaluate Your Dialogue System: An Empirical Study of Unsupervised Evaluation Metrics for Dialogue Response Generation. InProceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguist...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/d16-1230 2016

  50. [50]

    Edward Loper and Steven Bird. 2002. NLTK: The Natural Language Toolkit. InProceedings of the ACL-02 Workshop on Effective Tools and Methodologies for Teaching Natural Language Processing and Computational Linguistics - Volume 1 (ETMTNLP ’02). Association for Computational Linguistics, USA, 63–70. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.3115/1118108.1118117

    work page doi:10.3115/1118108.1118117 2002

  51. [51]

    Tomas Mikolov, Kai Chen, Greg Corrado, and Jeffrey Dean. 2013. Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Space. (2013)

    2013

  52. [52]

    Ehsan Montahaei, Danial Alihosseini, and Mahdieh Soleymani Baghshah. 2019. Jointly Measuring Diversity and Quality in Text Generation Models.CoRR abs/1904.03971 (2019). http://arxiv.org/abs/1904.03971

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  53. [53]

    Zeynab Mottaghinia, Mohammad-Reza Feizi-Derakhshi, Leili Farzinvash, and Pedram Salehpour. 2020. A review of approaches for topic detection in Twitter.Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence0, 0 (2020), 1–27.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0952813X.2020.1785019

    work page doi:10.1080/0952813x.2020.1785019 2020

  54. [54]

    Jekaterina Novikova, Ond ˇrej Dušek, Amanda Cercas Curry, and Verena Rieser. 2017. Why We Need New Evaluation Metrics for NLG. InProceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2241–2252.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18653/v1/D17-1238

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/d17-1238 2017

  55. [55]

    Jekaterina Novikova, Ond ˇrej Dušek, and Verena Rieser

  56. [56]

    DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.18653/v1/n18-2012

    RankME: Reliable Human Ratings for Natural Language Generation.Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 2 (Short Papers)(2018). DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.18653/v1/n18-2012

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/n18-2012 2018

  57. [57]

    Catherine Ordun, Sanjay Purushotham, and Edward Raff. 2020. Exploratory Analysis of Covid-19 Tweets using Topic Modeling, UMAP, and DiGraphs. (2020)

    2020

  58. [58]

    Salvatore Pirri, Valentina Lorenzoni, Gianni Andreozzi, Marta Mosca, and Giuseppe Turchetti. 2020. Topic Modeling and User Network Analysis on Twitter during World Lupus Awareness Day.International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health17, 15 (2020).DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17155440

    work page doi:10.3390/ijerph17155440 2020

  59. [59]

    Uganda Governance Monitoring Platform. 2015. Power belongs to the people: The citizens manifesto, 2016-2021. Report. (2015). https://www.kituochakatiba.org/sites/default/files/ publications/Citizen-Manifesto-2016-2021LR.pdf

    2015

  60. [60]

    Juho Pääkkönen and Petri Ylikoski. 2020. Humanistic interpretation and machine learning.Sythese2020 (September 2020).DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11229-020-02806-w

    work page doi:10.1007/s11229-020-02806-w 2020

  61. [61]

    Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2018. Language Models are Unsupervised Multitask Learners. (2018). https://d4mucfpksywv.cloudfront.net/ better-language-models/language-models.pdf

    2018

  62. [62]

    Michael Röder, Andreas Both, and Alexander Hinneburg. 2015. Exploring the Space of Topic Coherence Measures. InProceedings of the Eighth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY , USA, 399–408.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2684822.2685324

    work page doi:10.1145/2684822.2685324 2015

  63. [63]

    Sai, Akash Kumar Mohankumar, and Mitesh M

    Ananya B. Sai, Akash Kumar Mohankumar, and Mitesh M. Khapra. 2020. A Survey of Evaluation Metrics Used for NLG Systems. (2020)

    2020

  64. [64]

    Sashank Santhanam and Samira Shaikh. 2019. Towards Best Experiment Design for Evaluating Dialogue System Output. (2019)

    2019

  65. [65]

    Zhan Shi, Xinchi Chen, Xipeng Qiu, and Xuanjing Huang. 2018. Toward Diverse Text Generation with Inverse Reinforcement Learning. (2018)

    2018

  66. [66]

    Sarah Shugars and Nicholas Beauchamp. 2019. Why Keep Arguing? Predicting Engagement in Political Conversations Online.SAGE Open9, 1 (2019), 2158244019828850.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2158244019828850

    work page doi:10.1177/2158244019828850 2019

  67. [67]

    Carson Sievert and Kenneth Shirley. 2014. LDAvis: A method for visualizing and interpreting topics. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Interactive Language Learning, Visualization, and Interfaces. Association for Computational Linguistics, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, 63–70.DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.3115/v1/W14-3110

    work page doi:10.3115/v1/w14-3110 2014

  68. [68]

    StatCounter. 2021. Social Media Stats in Uganda - January 2021. Report. (2021).https: //gs.statcounter.com/social-media-stats/all/uganda

    2021

  69. [69]

    Laerd Statistics. 2019. Fleiss’ kappa using SPSS Statistics. Statistical tutorials and software guides.. (2019).https://statistics.laerd.com/spss-tutorials/ fleiss-kappa-in-spss-statistics.php

    2019

  70. [70]

    Asbjørn Steinskog, Jonas Therkelsen, and Björn Gambäck. 2017. Twitter Topic Modeling by Tweet Aggregation. InProceedings of the 21st Nordic Conference on Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, Gothenburg, Sweden, 77–86.https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W17-0210

    2017

  71. [71]

    Jost, and Curtis D

    Joanna Sterling, John T. Jost, and Curtis D. Hardin

  72. [72]

    DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2158244019846211

    Liberal and Conservative Representations of the Good Society: A (Social) Structural Topic Modeling Approach.SAGE Open9, 2 (2019), 2158244019846211. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2158244019846211

    work page doi:10.1177/2158244019846211 2019

  73. [73]

    Tucker, and Richard Bonneau

    Denis Stukal, Sergey Sanovich, Joshua A. Tucker, and Richard Bonneau. 2019. For Whom the Bot Tolls: A Neural Networks Approach to Measuring Political Orientation of Twitter Bots in Russia.SAGE Open9, 2 (2019), 2158244019827715.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2158244019827715

    work page doi:10.1177/2158244019827715 2019

  74. [74]

    Xing, and Zhiting Hu

    Bowen Tan, Zichao Yang, Maruan AI-Shedivat, Eric P. Xing, and Zhiting Hu. 2020. Progressive Generation of Long Text. (2020)

    2020

  75. [75]

    Shu-Feng Tsao, Helen Chen, Therese Tisseverasinghe, Yang Yang, Lianghua Li, and Zahid A Butt. 2021. What social media told us in the time of COVID-19: a scoping review.The Lancet Digital Health(2021).DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2589-7500(20)30315-0

    work page doi:10.1016/s2589-7500(20)30315-0 2021

  76. [76]

    2016.The National Population and Housing Census 2014 - Main Report, Kampala, Uganda

    UBoS. 2016.The National Population and Housing Census 2014 - Main Report, Kampala, Uganda. Technical Report. Uganda Bureau of Statistics

    2016

  77. [77]

    Cristian Vaccari and Augusto Valeriani. 2018. Digital Political Talk and Political Participation: Comparing Established and Third Wave Democracies.SAGE Open 8, 2 (2018), 2158244018784986.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2158244018784986

    work page doi:10.1177/2158244018784986 2018

  78. [78]

    Vladimir Vargas-Calderón and Jorge Camargo. 2019. Characterization of citizens using word2vec and latent topic analysis in a large set of tweets.CoRR abs/1904.08926 (2019). http://arxiv.org/abs/1904.08926

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  79. [79]

    Lloyd George Waller. 2013. Enhancing Political Participation in Jamaica: The Use of Facebook to “Cure” the Problem of Political Talk Among the Jamaican Youth.SAGE Open3, 2 (2013), 2158244013486656. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2158244013486656

    work page doi:10.1177/2158244013486656 2013

  80. [80]

    Hao Wang, Dogan Can, Abe Kazemzadeh, François Bar, and Shrikanth Narayanan. 2012. A System for Real-time Twitter Sentiment Analysis of 2012 U.S. Presidential Election Cycle. InProceedings of the ACL 2012 System Demonstrations. Association for Computational Linguistics, Jeju Island, Korea, 115–120. https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P12-3020

    2012

Showing first 80 references.