Dataset Information

Measuring Emotion in Parliamentary Debates with Automated Textual Analysis.

ABSTRACT: An impressive breadth of interdisciplinary research suggests that emotions have an influence on human behavior. Nonetheless, we still know very little about the emotional states of those actors whose daily decisions have a lasting impact on our societies: politicians in parliament. We address this question by making use of methods of natural language processing and a digitized corpus of text data spanning a century of parliamentary debates in the United Kingdom. We use this approach to examine changes in aggregate levels of emotional polarity in the British parliament, and to test a hypothesis about the emotional response of politicians to economic recessions. Our findings suggest that, contrary to popular belief, the mood of politicians has become more positive during the past decades, and that variations in emotional polarity can be predicted by the state of the national economy.

SUBMITTER: Rheault L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5179059 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Measuring Emotion in Parliamentary Debates with Automated Textual Analysis.

Rheault Ludovic L Beelen Kaspar K Cochrane Christopher C Hirst Graeme G

PloS one 20161222 12

An impressive breadth of interdisciplinary research suggests that emotions have an influence on human behavior. Nonetheless, we still know very little about the emotional states of those actors whose daily decisions have a lasting impact on our societies: politicians in parliament. We address this question by making use of methods of natural language processing and a digitized corpus of text data spanning a century of parliamentary debates in the United Kingdom. We use this approach to examine c ...[more]

PMID: 28006016

Similar Datasets

Project description:Creationism is a religiously motivated worldview in denial of biological evolution that has been very resistant to change. We performed a textual analysis by examining creationist and pro-evolutionary texts for aspects of "experiential thinking", a cognitive process different from scientific thought. We observed characteristics of experiential thinking as follows: testimonials (present in 100% of sampled creationist texts), such as quotations, were a major form of proof. Confirmation bias (100% of sampled texts) was represented by ignoring or dismissing information that would contradict the creationist hypothesis. Scientifically irrelevant or flawed information was re-interpreted as relevant for the falsification of evolution (75-90% of sampled texts). Evolutionary theory was associated to moral issues by demonizing scientists and linking evolutionary theory to atrocities (63-93% of sampled texts). Pro-evolutionary rebuttals of creationist claims also contained testimonials (93% of sampled texts) and referred to moral implications (80% of sampled texts) but displayed lower prevalences of stereotypical thinking (47% of sampled texts), confirmation bias (27% of sampled texts) and pseudodiagnostics (7% of sampled texts). The aspects of experiential thinking could also be interpreted as argumentative fallacies. Testimonials lead, for instance, to ad hominem and appeals to authorities. Confirmation bias and simplification of data give rise to hasty generalizations and false dilemmas. Moral issues lead to guilt by association and appeals to consequences. Experiential thinking and fallacies can contribute to false beliefs and the persistence of the claims. We propose that science educators would benefit from the systematic analysis of experiential thinking patterns and fallacies in creationist texts and pro-evolutionary rebuttals in order to concentrate on scientific misconceptions instead of the scientifically irrelevant aspects of the creationist-evolutionist debate.

Project description:Summary With a rising number of scientific datasets published and the need to test their Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR) compliance repeatedly, data stakeholders have recognized the importance of an automated FAIR assessment. This paper presents a programmatic solution for assessing the FAIRness of research data. We describe the translation of the FAIR data principles into measurable metrics and the application of the metrics in evaluating FAIR compliance of research data through an open-source tool we developed. For each metric, we conceptualized and implemented practical tests drawn upon prevailing data curation and sharing practices, and the paper discusses their rationales. We demonstrate the work by evaluating multidisciplinary datasets from trustworthy repositories, followed by recommendations and improvements. We believe our experience in developing and applying the metrics in practice and the lessons we learned from it will provide helpful information to others developing similar approaches to assess different types of digital objects and services. Highlights • A set of core metrics for assessing the FAIR compliance of scientific data• An automated assessment tool for applying the metrics in practice• FAIR assessments are drawn upon widely adopted data sharing practices• Tested and used in the context of diverse data repositories The bigger picture In recent years, there has been a strong recommendation from funders, publishers, and research organizations on adopting the Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR) principles to maximize scientific data availability and reuse. However, measuring the FAIRness of research data in practice is challenging. The number of datasets has proliferated in scientific research, and new datasets are emerging from various sources. This paper aims to contribute to the FAIR data assessment through a set of core metrics elaborating the principles and an automated tool that supports FAIR evaluation based on the metrics. The metrics are built on established work and consider standard data practices. The tool development is collaborative and iterative. The consultative process has motivated the repositories to refine their data services. Further pilots are planned with the repositories in the European Open Science Cloud. The broader goal is to adapt the solution to assess other digital objects such as vocabularies and software. One of the open questions around the FAIR assessment is how to measure FAIRness of the scientific data in practice. We found that explicit and machine-assessable metrics drawn upon prevailing data sharing practices are vital to evaluating FAIR data programmatically. An automated FAIR assessment is continuous development and must go beyond the object itself. FAIR-enabling repositories should evolve in parallel to support continued access to and long-term preservation of FAIR data.

Dataset Information

Measuring Emotion in Parliamentary Debates with Automated Textual Analysis.

Publications

Measuring Emotion in Parliamentary Debates with Automated Textual Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets