Investigating Opinions on Public Policies in Digital Media: Setting up a Supervised Machine Learning Tool for Stance Classification

References

• Alam, F., Qazi, U., Imran, M., & Ofli, F. (2021, April). HumAID: Human-Annotated Disaster Incidents Data from Twitter with Deep Learning Benchmarks. Proceedings of the Fifteenth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM 2021), 933–942. Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence.
   Google Scholar
• ALDayel, A., & Magdy, W. (2021). Stance detection on social media: State of the art and trends. Information Processing & Management, 58(4), 102597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2021.102597
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bahad, P., Saxena, P., & Kamal, R. (2019). Fake news detection using bi-directional LSTM-recurrent neural network. Procedia Computer Science, 165, 74–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2020.01.072
   Google Scholar
• Bahdanau, D., Cho, K., & Bengio, Y. (2015). Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate. In Y. Bengio & Y. LeCun (Eds.), 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, May 7-9, 2015, Conference Track Proceedings. http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.0473
   Google Scholar
• Bansal, T., Jha, R., & McCallum, A. (2020, December). Learning to few-shot learn across diverse natural language classification tasks. In Proceedings of the 28th international conference on computational linguistics (pp. 5108–5123). Barcelona, Spain (Online): International Committee on Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/2020.coling-main.448
   Google Scholar
• Beck, T., Lee, J., Viehmann, C., Maurer, M., Quiring, O., & Gurevych, I. (2021). Investigating label suggestions for opinion mining in German Covid-19 social media. In: Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing ( Volume 1: Long Papers), S. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.1
   Google Scholar
• Berelson, B. (1952). Content analysis in communication research. Free press.
   Google Scholar
• Bojanowski, P., Grave, E., Joulin, A., & Mikolov, T. (2017). Enriching word vectors with subword information. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 5, 135–146. https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00051
   Google Scholar
• Boukes, M., van de Velde, B., Araujo, T., & Vliegenthart, R. (2020). What’s the tone? easy doesn’t do it: Analyzing performance and agreement between off-the-shelf sentiment analysis tools. Communication Methods and Measures, 14(2), 83–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2019.1671966
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boumans, J. W., & Trilling, D. (2016). Taking stock of the toolkit. Digital Journalism, 4(1), 8–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2015.1096598
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, T., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J. D., Dhariwal, P., … Amodei, D. (2020). Language models are few-shot learners. In H. Larochelle, M. Ranzato, R. Hadsell, M. F. Balcan, & H. Lin (Eds.) Advances in neural information processing systems. Vol. 33 1877–1901. Curran Associates, Inc. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2020/file/1457c0d6bfcb4967418bfb8ac142f64a-Paper.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Budak, C., Garrett, R. K., & Sude, D. (2021). Better crowdcoding: Strategies for promoting accuracy in crowdsourced content analysis. Communication Methods and Measures, 15(2), 141–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2021.1895977
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burscher, B., Odijk, D., Vliegenthart, R., de Rijke, M., & de Vreese, C. H. (2014). Teaching the computer to code frames in news: Comparing two supervised machine learning approaches to frame analysis. Communication Methods and Measures, 8(3), 190–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2014.937527
   Google Scholar
• Chan, B., Schweter, S., & Möller, T. (2020, December). German’s next language model. In Proceedings of the 28th international conference on computational linguistics (pp. 6788–6796). Barcelona, Spain (Online): International Committee on Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/2020.coling-main.598
   Google Scholar
• Colleoni, E., Rozza, A., & Arvidsson, A. (2014, 3). Echo chamber or public sphere? Predicting political orientation and measuring political homophily in Twitter using Big Data. Journal of Communication, 64(2), 317–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12084
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dai, A. M., & Le, Q. V. (2015). Semi-supervised sequence learning. In C. Cortes, N. Lawrence, D. Lee, M. Sugiyama, & R. Garnett, (Eds.) Advances in neural information processing systems. Vol. 28, pp. 3079-3087. Curran Associates, Inc. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2015/file/7137debd45ae4d0ab9aa953017286b20-Paper.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Delobelle, P., Winters, T., & Berendt, B. (2020). RobBERT: A Dutch RoBERTabased language model. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, 16-20. November 2020, Online, 3255–3265. Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/2020.findings-emnlp.292
   Google Scholar
• Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. (2019, June). BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics: Human language technologies,volume 1 ( long and short papers) (pp. 4171–4186). Minneapolis, Minnesota: Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/N19-1423
   Google Scholar
• De Vries, W., Van Cranenburgh, A., Bisazza, A., Caselli, T., Van Noord, G., & Nissim, M. (2019). BERTje: A Dutch BERT model. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.09582, abs/1912.09582. http://arxiv.org/abs/1912.09582
   Google Scholar
• Dodge, J., Ilharco, G., Schwartz, R., Farhadi, A., Hajishirzi, H., & Smith, N. A. (2020). FineTuning pretrained language models: Weight initializations, data orders, and early stopping. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.06305, abs/2002.0. https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.06305
   Google Scholar
• Dos Santos, C., & Gatti, M. (2014, August). Deep convolutional neural networks for sentiment analysis of short texts. In Proceedings of COLING 2014, the 25th international conference on computational linguistics: Technical papers (pp. 69–78). Dublin, Ireland: Dublin City University and Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/C14-1008
   Google Scholar
• Dun, L., Soroka, S., & Wlezien, C. (2021). Dictionaries, supervised learning, and media coverage of public policy. Political Communication, 38(1–2), 140–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1763529
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ethayarajh, K., & Jurafsky, D. (2021, August). Attention flows are shapley value explanations. In Proceedings of the 59th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics and the 11th international joint conference on natural language processing (volume 2: Short papers) (pp. 49–54). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/2021.acl-short.8
   Google Scholar
• Feder, A., Oved, N., Shalit, U., & Reichart, R. (2021, 7). CausaLM: Causal model explanation through counterfactual language models. Computational Linguistics, 47(2), 333–386. https://doi.org/10.1162/coli_a_00404
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feng, S., Wallace, E., Grissom, A., II, Iyyer, M., Rodriguez, P., & Boyd-Graber, J. (2018, October–November). Pathologies of neural models make interpretations difficult. In Proceedings of the 2018 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (pp. 3719–3728). Brussels, Belgium: Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/D18-1407
   Google Scholar
• Geiß, S. (2021). Statistical power in content analysis designs. Computational Communication Research, 3(1), 61–89. https://doi.org/10.5117/CCR2021.1.003.GEIS
   Google Scholar
• Ghosh, S., Singhania, P., Singh, S., Rudra, K., & Ghosh, S. (2019). Stance detection in web and social media: A comparative study. In F. Crestani, Braschler, M., Savoy, J., Rauber, A., Müller, H., Losada, D. E., Bürki, G. H., Cappellato, L., Ferro, N. (Eds.) Experimental IR meets multilinguality, multimodality, and interaction. 75–87. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28577-7_4
   Google Scholar
• Goodfellow, I., Bengio, Y., & Courville, A. (2017). Deep learning. MIT press.
   Google Scholar
• Graves, A. (2012). Supervised sequence labelling with recurrent neural networks (Vol. 385). Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24797-2
   Google Scholar
• Grimmer, J., & Stewart, B. M. (2013). Text as data: The promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts. Political Analysis, 21(3), 267–297. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mps028
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gururangan, S., Marasović, A., Swayamdipta, S., Lo, K., Beltagy, I., Downey, D., & Smith, N. A. (2020, July). Don’t stop pretraining: Adapt language models to domains and tasks. In Proceedings of the 58th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (pp. 8342–8360). Online: Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/2020.acl-main.740
   Google Scholar
• Hochreiter, S., & Schmidhuber, J. (1997). Long short-term memory. Neural Computation, 9(8), 1735–1780. https://doi.org/10.1162/neco.1997.9.8.1735
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howard, J., & Ruder, S. (2018, July). Universal language model fine-tuning for text classification. In Proceedings of the 56th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (volume 1: Long papers) (pp. 328–339). Melbourne, Australia: Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/P18-1031
   Google Scholar
• Hsueh, P.-Y., Melville, P., & Sindhwani, V. (2009, June). Data quality from crowdsourcing: A study of annotation selection criteria. In Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2009 workshop on active learning for natural language processing (pp. 27–35). Boulder, Colorado: Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/W09-1904
   Google Scholar
• Hvitfeldt, E., & Silge, J. (2021). Supervised machine learning for text analysis in R. Chapman and Hall/CRC.
   Google Scholar
• Joachims, T. (1998). Text categorization with support vector machines: Learning with many relevant features. In European conference on machine learning (pp. 137–142). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Jordan, M. I., & Mitchell, T. M. (2015). Machine learning: Trends, perspectives, and prospects. Science, 349(6245), 255–260. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa8415
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, Y. (2014, October). Convolutional neural networks for sentence classification. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP) (pp. 1746–1751). Doha, Qatar: Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/D14-1181
   Google Scholar
• Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I., & Hinton, G. E. (2017). Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. Communications of the ACM, 60(6), 84–90. https://doi.org/10.1145/3065386
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lai, M., Patti, V., Ruffo, G., & Rosso, P. 2018. Stance evolution and twitter interactions in an Italian political debate. In Natural language processing and information systems M. Silberztein, F. Atigui, E. Kornyshova, E. Métais, & F. Meziane Eds. Springer International Publishing 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91947-8_2
   Google Scholar
• Li, J., Monroe, W., & Jurafsky, D. (2016). Understanding neural networks through representation erasure. arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.08220 http://arxiv.org/abs/1612.08220
   Google Scholar
• Liu, P., Qiu, X., & Huang, X. (2016). Recurrent neural network for text classification with multi-task learning. In Proceedings of the twenty-fifth international joint conference on artificial intelligence (p. 2873–2879). AAAI Press. https://www.ijcai.org/Proceedings/16/Papers/408.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Mahrt, M., & Scharkow, M. (2013). The value of big data in digital media research. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57(1), 20–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2012.761700
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matthes, J. (2009). What’s in a frame? a content analysis of media framing studies in the world’s leading communication journals, 1990-2005. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 86(2), 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990090860020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maurer, M., Daxenberger, J., Orlikowski, M., & Gurevych, I. (2019). Argument mining: A new method for automated text analysis and its application in communication science. In Müller, P., Geiss, S., Schemer, C., Naab, T. K., Peter, C. (Eds.), Dynamische Prozesse in der Kommunikationswissenschaft: Methodische Herausforderungen (pp. 18–37). Halem.
   Google Scholar
• McCann, B., Bradbury, J., Xiong, C., & Socher, R. (2017). Learned in translation: Contextualized word vectors. In Proceedings of the 31st international conference on neural information processing systems (p. 6297–6308). Red Hook, NY, USA: Curran Associates Inc. https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.5555/3295222.3295377
   Google Scholar
• Merkley, E. (2020). Are experts (news)worthy? balance, conflict, and mass media coverage of expert consensus. Political Communication, 37(4), 530–549. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1713269
   Google Scholar
• Mickoleit, A. (2014, December). Social media use by governments: A policy primer to discuss trends, identify policy opportunities and guide decision makers (OECD Working Papers on Public Governance No. 26). OECD Publishing. https://ideas.repec.org/p/oec/govaaa/26-en.html
   Google Scholar
• Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G., & Dean, J. (2013). Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. In Y. Bengio & Y. LeCun (Eds.), 1st international conference on learning representations, ICLR 2013, scottsdale, arizona, usa, may 2-4, 2013, workshop track proceedings. http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.3781
   Google Scholar
• Mikolov, T., Yih, W.-T., & Zweig, G. (2013). Linguistic regularities in continuous space word representations. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics: Human language technologies (pp. 746–751).
   Google Scholar
• Mohammad, S. M., Sobhani, P., & Kiritchenko, S. (2017). Stance and sentiment in tweets. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology (TOIT), 17(3), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1145/3003433
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newman, N. (2020). Executive summary and key findings of the 2020 report. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism Digital News Report. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2020-06/DNR_2020_FINAL.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen, M. (2019). Neural Networks and Deep Learning. Determination Press. http://neuralnetworksanddeeplearning.com/index.html
   Google Scholar
• Olteanu, A., Vieweg, S., & Castillo, C. (2015, February). What to expect when the unexpected happens: Social media communications across crises. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing (pp. 994–1009).
   Google Scholar
• Peters, M. E., Ammar, W., Bhagavatula, C., & Power, R. (2017, July). Semi-supervised sequence tagging with bidirectional language models. In Proceedings of the 55th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (volume 1: Long papers) (pp. 1756–1765). Vancouver, Canada: Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/P17-1161
   Google Scholar
• Peters, M. E., Neumann, M., Iyyer, M., Gardner, M., Clark, C., Lee, K., & Zettlemoyer, L. (2018, June). Deep contextualized word representations. In Proceedings of the 2018 conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics: Human language technologies, volume 1 (long papers) (pp. 2227–2237). New Orleans, Louisiana: Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/N18-1202
   Google Scholar
• Phang, J., Févry, T., & Bowman, S. R. (2018). Sentence Encoders on STILTs: Supplementary training on intermediate labeled-data tasks. CoRR, abs/1811.01088. http://arxiv.org/abs/1811.01088
   Google Scholar
• Pilny A., McAninch K., Slone A. and Moore K. (2019). Using Supervised Machine Learning in Automated Content Analysis: An Example Using Relational Uncertainty. Communication Methods and Measures, 13(4), 287–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2019.1650166
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rajadesingan, A., & Liu, H. 2014. Identifying users with opposing opinions in twitter debates. In Social computing, behavioral-cultural modeling and prediction W. G. Kennedy, N. Agarwal, & S. J. Yang Eds. Springer International Publishing 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05579-4_19
   Google Scholar
• Ribeiro, M., Singh, S., & Guestrin, C. (2016, June). “why should I trust you?”: Explaining the predictions of any classifier. In Proceedings of the 2016 conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics: Demonstrations (pp. 97–101). San Diego, California: Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/N16-3020
   Google Scholar
• Rieger, J., & von Nordheim, G. (2021). corona100d: German-language twitter dataset of the first100 days after chancellor merkel addressed the coronavirus outbreak on tv (DoCMA Working Paper No. 4). Dortmund. http://hdl.handle.net/10419/231349
   Google Scholar
• Riffe, D., Lacy, S., Watson, B. R., & Fico, F. (2019). Analyzing media messages: Using quantitative content analysis in research. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Risch, J., Stoll, A., Ziegele, M., & Krestel, R. (2019). hpidedis at germeval 2019: Offensive language identification using a German bert model. In Proceedings of the 15th conference on natural language processing (konvens 2019) (pp. 405–410), 9-11 October 2019, Erlangen, Germany. German Society for Computational Linguistics & Language Technology. https://corpora.linguistik.uni-erlangen.de/data/konvens/proceedings/papers/germeval/Germeval_Task_2_2019_paper_10.HPIDEDIS.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Röchert, D., Neubaum, G., Ross, B., Brachten, F., & Stieglitz, S. (2020). Opinion-based Homogeneity on YouTube. Computational Communication Research, 2(1), 81–108. https://doi.org/10.5117/CCR2020.1.004.ROCH
   Google Scholar
• Rudkowsky, E., Haselmayer, M., Wastian, M., Jenny, M., Emrich, Š., & Sedlmair, M. (2018). More than bags of words: Sentiment analysis with word embeddings. Communication Methods and Measures, 12(2–3), 140–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2018.1455817
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruoho, I. A., & Kuusiplao, J. (2019). The inner circle of power on twitter? how politicians and journalists form a virtual network elite in Finland. Observatorio (OBS*), 13(1). https://doi.org/10.15847/obsOBS13120191326
   Google Scholar
• Sagi, E., & Dehghani, M. (2014). Measuring moral rhetoric in text. Social Science Computer Review, 32(2), 132–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439313506837
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schaefer, R., & Stede, M. 2019. Improving implicit stance classification in tweets using word and sentence embeddings. In Ki 2019: Advances in artificial intelligence C. Benzmüller & H. Stuckenschmidt Eds. Springer International Publishing 299–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30179-8_26
   Google Scholar
• Schaefer, R., & Stede, M. (2021). Argument mining on twitter: A survey. It – Information Technology, 63(1), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1515/itit-2020-0053
   Google Scholar
• Schiller, B., Daxenberger, J., & Gurevych, I.(2021). Stance detection benchmark: How robust is your stance detection? KI-Künstliche Intelligenz. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13218-021-00714-w
   Google Scholar
• Serrano, S., & Smith, N. A. (2019, July). Is attention interpretable? In Proceedings of the 57th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (pp. 2931–2951). Florence, Italy: Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/P19-1282
   Google Scholar
• Song, H., Tolochko, P., Eberl, J. M., Eisele, O., Greussing, E., Heidenreich, T., Lind, F., Galyga, S., & Boomgaarden, H. G. (2020). In validations we trust? The impact of imperfect human annotations as a gold standard on the quality of validation of automated content analysis. Political Communication, 37(4), 550–572. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1723752
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steinbach, P., Gernhardt, F., Tanveer, M., Schmerler, S., & Starke, S. (2022). Machine learning state-of-the-art with uncertainties. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.05173. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2204.05173
   Google Scholar
• Stoll, A. (2020). Supervised Machine Learning mit Nutzergenerierten Inhalten: Oversampling für nicht balancierte Trainingsdaten. Publizistik, 65(2), 233–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11616-020-00573-9
   Google Scholar
• Stoll, A., Ziegele, M., & Quiring, O. (2020). Detecting impoliteness and incivility in online discussions. Computational Communication Research, 2(1), 109–134. https://doi.org/10.5117/CCR2020.1.005.KATH
   Google Scholar
• Sundararajan, M., Taly, A., & Yan, Q. (2017). Axiomatic attribution for deep networks. In Proceedings of the 34th international conference on machine learning - volume 70 (p. 3319–3328). JMLR.org. https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.5555/3305890.3306024
   Google Scholar
• Turian, J., Ratinov, L., & Bengio, Y. (2010). Word representations: A simple and general method for semi-supervised learning. In Proceedings of the 48th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (pp. 384–394).
   Google Scholar
• van Atteveldt, W., van der Velden, M. A., & Boukes, M. (2021). The validity of sentiment analysis: Comparing manual annotation, crowd-coding, dictionary approaches, and machine learning algorithms. Communication Methods and Measures, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2020.1869198
   Google Scholar
• Van der Meer, T. G. (2016). Automated content analysis and crisis communication research. Public Relations Review, 42(5), 952–961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2016.09.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., … Polosukhin, I. (2017). Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 5998–6008. https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03762
   Google Scholar
• Veitch, V., D’Amour, A., Yadlowsky, S., & Eisenstein, J. (2021). Counterfactual invariance to spurious correlations in text classification. In A. Beygelzimer, Y. Dauphin, P. Liang, & J. W. Vaughan (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems. https://openreview.net/forum?id=BdKxQp0iBi8
   Google Scholar
• Wang, R., Zhou, D., Jiang, M., Si, J., & Yang, Y. (2019). A survey on opinion mining: From stance to product aspect. IEEE Access, 7, 41101–41124. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2906754
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weber, R., Mangus, J. M., Huskey, R., Hopp, F. R., Amir, O., Swanson, R., Gordon, A., Khooshabeh, P., Hahn, L., & Tamborini, R. (2018). Extracting latent moral information from text narratives: Relevance, challenges, and solutions. Communication Methods and Measures, 12(2–3), 119–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2018.1447656
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiegreffe, S., & Pinter, Y. (2019, November). Attention is not not explanation. In Proceedings of the 2019 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing and the 9th international joint conference on natural language processing (emnlp-ijcnlp) (pp. 11–20). Hong Kong, China: Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/D19-1002
   Google Scholar
• Xie, S. M., Raghunathan, A., Liang, P., & Ma, T. (2021). An explanation of in-context learning as implicit Bayesian inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.02080. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2111.02080
   Google Scholar
• Yin, W., Kann, K., Yu, M., & Schütze, H. (2017). Comparative study of CNN and RNN for natural language processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.01923. https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.01923
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, H. (2004). The optimality of naive Bayes. In V. Barr & Z. Markov (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference,Miami Beach, Florida, USA (pp. 562–567). AAAI Press. http://www.aaai.org/Library/FLAIRS/2004/flairs04-097.php
   Google Scholar
• Zhao, X., Liu, J. S., & Deng, K. (2013). Assumptions behind intercoder reliability indices. Annals of the International Communication Association, 36(1), 419–480. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2013.11679142
   Google Scholar
• Ziegele, M., Quiring, O., Esau, K., & Friess, D. (2020). Linking news value theory with online deliberation: How news factors and illustration factors in news articles affect the deliberative quality of user discussions in sns’ comment sections. Communication Research, 47(6), 860–890. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650218797884
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zubiaga, A., Kochkina, E., Liakata, M., Procter, R., Lukasik, M., Bontcheva, K., Cohn, T., & Augenstein, I. (2018). Discourse-aware rumour stance classification in social media using sequential classifiers. Information Processing & Management, 54(2), 273–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2017.11.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar