skip to main content
10.1145/2396761.2398549acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescikmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

PolariCQ: polarity classification of political quotations

Authors Info & Claims
Published:29 October 2012Publication History

ABSTRACT

We consider the problem of automatically classifying quotations about political debates into both topic and polarity. These quotations typically appear in news media and online forums. Our approach maps quotations onto one or more topics in a category system of political debates, containing more than a thousand fine-grained topics. To overcome the difficulty that pro/con classification faces due to the brevity of quotations and sparseness of features, we have devised a model of quotation expansion that harnesses antonyms from thesauri like WordNet. We developed a suite of statistical language models, judiciously customized to our settings, and use these to define similarity measures for unsupervised or supervised classifications. Experiments show the effectiveness of our method.

References

  1. L. Adamic and N. Glance. The political blogosphere and the 2004 us election: divided they blog. Workshop on Link Discovery, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. R. Awadallah, M. Ramanath, and G. Weikum. Harmony and dissonance: organizing the people's voices on political controversies. In WSDM, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. R. Balasubramanyan, W. Cohen, D. Pierce, and D. Redlawsk. Modeling polarizing topics: When do different political communities respond differently to the same news? In ICWSM, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. C. Burfoot, S. Bird, and T. Baldwin. Collective classification of congressional floor-debate transcripts. In ACL, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Y. Fang, L. Si, N. Somasundaram, and Z. Yu. Mining contrastive opinions on political texts using cross-perspective topic model. In WSDM, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. R. Kaptein, M. Marx, and J. Kamps. Who said what to whom?: capturing the structure of debates. In SIGIR, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. B. Liu. Sentiment analysis and subjectivity. In Handbook of Natural Language Processing, Second Edition. 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Y. Lu, H. Duan, H. Wang, and C. Zhai. Exploiting structured ontology to organize scattered online opinions. In COLING, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. D. Nguyen, E. Mayfield, and C. Rosé. An analysis of perspectives in interactive settings. In SOMA, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. B. Pang and L. Lee. Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. FnT in IR, 2(1--2), 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. S. Ponzetto and R. Navigli. Knowledge-rich word sense disambiguation rivaling supervised systems. In ACL, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. X. Zhou, P. Resnick, and Q. Mei. Classifying the political leaning of news articles and users from user votes. In ICWSM, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. PolariCQ: polarity classification of political quotations

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        CIKM '12: Proceedings of the 21st ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management
        October 2012
        2840 pages
        ISBN:9781450311564
        DOI:10.1145/2396761

        Copyright © 2012 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 29 October 2012

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • short-paper

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate1,861of8,427submissions,22%

        Upcoming Conference

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader