BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Matthew Babcock

Matthew Babcock appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
Computation and LanguageMachine LearningSocial and Information Networks

Catalog footprint

What is connected

2works
3topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2020arXiv

Polarizing Tweets on Climate Change

We introduce a framework to analyze the conversation between two competing groups of Twitter users, one who believe in the anthropogenic causes of climate change (Believers) and a second who are skeptical (Disbelievers). As a case study, we use Climate Change related tweets during the United Nation's (UN) Climate Change Conference - COP24 (2018), Katowice, Poland. We find that both Disbelievers and Believers talk within their group more than with the other group; this is more so the case for Disbelievers than for Believers. The Disbeliever messages focused more on attacking those personalities that believe in the anthropogenic causes of climate change. On the other hand, Believer messages focused on calls to combat climate change. We find that in both Disbelievers and Believers bot-like accounts were equally active and that unlike Believers, Disbelievers get their news from a concentrated number of news sources.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Stance in Replies and Quotes (SRQ): A New Dataset For Learning Stance in Twitter Conversations

Automated ways to extract stance (denying vs. supporting opinions) from conversations on social media are essential to advance opinion mining research. Recently, there is a renewed excitement in the field as we see new models attempting to improve the state-of-the-art. However, for training and evaluating the models, the datasets used are often small. Additionally, these small datasets have uneven class distributions, i.e., only a tiny fraction of the examples in the dataset have favoring or denying stances, and most other examples have no clear stance. Moreover, the existing datasets do not distinguish between the different types of conversations on social media (e.g., replying vs. quoting on Twitter). Because of this, models trained on one event do not generalize to other events. In the presented work, we create a new dataset by labeling stance in responses to posts on Twitter (both replies and quotes) on controversial issues. To the best of our knowledge, this is currently the largest human-labeled stance dataset for Twitter conversations with over 5200 stance labels. More importantly, we designed a tweet collection methodology that favors the selection of denial-type responses. This class is expected to be more useful in the identification of rumors and determining antagonistic relationships between users. Moreover, we include many baseline models for learning the stance in conversations and compare the performance of various models. We show that combining data from replies and quotes decreases the accuracy of models indicating that the two modalities behave differently when it comes to stance learning.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access