Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-08T05:02:12.116Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Political Opinion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2015

By
Daniel Gayo-Avello
Edited by
Yelena Mejova ,
Ingmar Weber  and
Michael W. Macy
Daniel Gayo-Avello
Affiliation:
University of Oviedo
Yelena Mejova
Affiliation:
Qatar Computing Research Institute, Doha
Ingmar Weber
Affiliation:
Qatar Computing Research Institute, Doha
Michael W. Macy
Affiliation:
Cornell University, New York
Get access

Summary

Despite being a fairly recent phenomenon, microblogging has attracted a large number of researchers and practitioners who consider microposts a suitable source of data to ascertain public opinion. Among the reasons for that interest, we may find the fact that one single platform (i.e., Twitter) is the default choice for users; the ease with which one can collect data using public application programming interfaces (APIs); and the brevity of microposts, which forces users to get to the point when discussing any given topic.

This chapter is focused on efforts to exploit Twitter data to scrutinize public opinion in general, and political discussion in particular. It covers representative case studies conducted during the late 2000s and early 2010s and discusses their respective limitations. Finally, we analyze the implications of such approaches to political opinion in Twitter and depict important lines of research to further advance the field.

Introduction

This chapter is devoted to the problem of exploiting Twitter data to take the pulse of public opinion, particularly with regard to electoral forecasting. However, most of the arguments exposed here are not limited to Twitter, but apply broadly to any social networking site.

Twitter is (at the moment of this writing) the most convenient way to obtain user-generated content of opinionated nature about current events. That is the main reason why so much research has been performed on that platform and, in turn, such high expectations have been put on mining Twitter data.

For an in-depth overview of Twitter, in particular its historical evolution, consult the work by Van Dijck (2013, pp. 68–88). Rogers (2013) also analyzes Twitter's evolution, but mainly from a research perspective. His work shows the way in which research has evolved together with the service. In this regard, he provides compelling arguments to drop, once and for all, the caricatured image of Twitter as “pointless babble” and to acknowledge finally that it “serves as a mean to study cultural conditions.” Indeed, that simple idea pervades this chapter and the rest of the book.

Type
Chapter
Information
Twitter: A Digital Socioscope , pp. 52 - 74
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Al Zamal, F., Liu, W., & Ruths, D. (2012). Homophily and latent attribute inference: inferring latent attributes of Twitter users from neighbors. In ICWSM ’12 (p. 1). AAAI.
Allport, F. H. (1937). Toward a science of public opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1(1), 7–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asur, S., & Huberman, B. A. (2010). Predicting the future with social media. In Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology (WI-IAT), 2010IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference, ed. Xiangji Jimmy Huang, Irwin King, Vijay Rahhavan, and Stefan Ruger (vol. 1, pp. 492–9). IEEE.Google Scholar
Bailey, R. W. (2013). Gay Politics, Urban Politics: Identity and Economics in the Urban Setting. Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Bakliwal, A., Foster, J., van der Puil, J., O'Brien, R., Tounsi, L., & Hughes, M. (2013). Sentiment analysis of political tweets: towards an accurate classifier. NAACL, 49, 49–58.Google Scholar
Barberá, P. (2012). A new measure of party identification in Twitter: evidence from Spain. In Proceedings of the 2nd Annual General Conference of EPSA. European Political Science Association.
Barreto, M. A., & Bozonelos, D. N. (2009). Democrat, Republican, or none of the above? The role of religiosity in Muslim American party identification. Politics and Religion, 2(02), 200–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beauchamp, N. (2014). Predicting and interpolating state-level polling using Twitter textual data. Working paper.
Bermingham, A., & Smeaton, A. F. (2011). On using Twitter to monitor political sentiment and predict election results. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Sentiment Analysis Where AI Meets Psychology (SAAIP), IJCNLP 2011 (pp. 2–10). Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing.
Bollen, J., Mao, H., & Pepe, A. (2010). Determining the public mood state by analysis of microblogging posts. In Proceedings of the ALIFE XII Conference (pp. 667–8). ALIFE.
Bollen, J., Mao, H., & Pepe, A. (2011). Modeling public mood and emotion: Twitter sentiment and socio-economic phenomena. In Proceedings of the Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. ICWSM.
Borondo, J., Morales, A. J., Losada, J. C., & Benito, R. M. (2012). Characterizing and modeling an electoral campaign in the context of Twitter: 2011 Spanish presidential election as a case study. Chaos, 22(2), 023138.CrossRef
Bourdieu, P. (1979). Public opinion does not exist. Communication and Class Struggle, 1, 124–310.Google Scholar
Boutet, A., Kim, H., & Yoneki, E. (2012). What's in your tweets? I know who you supported in the UK 2010 general election. In Proceedings of the Sixth International AAAI. Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM).
Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1999). Affective norms for English words (ANEW): instruction manual and affective ratings (pp. 1–45). Technical Report C-1, Center for Research in Psychophysiology, University of Florida.
Burnap, P., Rana, O. F., Avis, N., Williams, M., Housley, W., Edwards, A., Morgan, J., & Sloan, L. (forthcoming). Detecting tension in online communities with computational Twitter analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change.
Caldarelli, G., Chessa, A., Pammolli, F., Pompa, G., Puliga, M., Riccaboni, M., & Riotta, G. (2014). A multi-level geographical study of Italian political elections from Twitter data. PLOS ONE, 9(5), e95809.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, D. E., & Monson, J. Q. (2008). The religion card: gay marriage and the 2004 presidential election. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(3), 399–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carvalho, P., Sarmento, L., Silva, M. J., & de Oliveira, E. (2009). Clues for detecting irony in user-generated contents: oh...!! it's so easy;-). In Proceedings of the 1st International CIKM Workshop on Topic-Sentiment Analysis for Mass Opinion (pp. 53–6). ACM.CrossRef
Castillo, C., Mendoza, M., & Poblete, B. (2011). Information credibility on Twitter. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on the World Wide Web (pp. 675–84). ACM.CrossRef
Castillo, C., Mendoza, M., & Poblete, B. (2013). Predicting information credibility in time-sensitive social media. Internet Research, 23(5), 560–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceron, A., Curini, L., Iacus, S. M., & Porro, G. (2013). Every tweet counts? How sentiment analysis of social media can improve our knowledge of citizens’ political preferences with an application to Italy and France. New Media & Society, 1461444813480466.Google Scholar
Choi, H., & Varian, H. (2012). Predicting the present with Google trends. Economic Record, 88(s1), 2–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chu, Z., Gianvecchio, S., Wang, H., & Jajodia, S. (2010). Who is tweeting on Twitter: human, bot, or cyborg? In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (pp. 21–30). ACM.CrossRef
Cohen, R., & Ruths, D. (2013). Classifying political orientation on Twitter: It's not easy! In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. AAAI.
Conover, M. D., Gonçalves, B., Ratkiewicz, J., Flammini, A., & Menczer, F. (2011). Predicting the political alignment of twitter users. In Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust (PASSAT), 2011 IEEE Third International Conference on and 2011 IEEE Third International Conference on Social Computing (SocialCom) (pp. 192–9). IEEE.CrossRef
Conover, P. J. (1988). Feminists and the gender gap. Journal of Politics, 50(04), 985–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeSipio, L. (1998). Counting on the Latino Vote: Latinos as a New Electorate. University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
Dean, J. (2003). Why the net is not a public sphere. Constellations, 10(1), 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dean, J. (2013). Blog Theory: Feedback and Capture in the Circuits of Drive. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
DiGrazia, J., McKelvey, K., Bollen, J., & Rojas, F. (2013). More tweets, more votes: social media as a quantitative indicator of political behavior. PLOS ONE, 8(11), e79449.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diakopoulos, N. A., & Shamma, D. A. (2010). Characterizing debate performance via aggregated twitter sentiment. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1195–8). ACM.CrossRef
Esuli, A., & Sebastiani, F. (2006). Sentiwordnet: a publicly available lexical resource for opinion mining. In Proceedings of LREC (vol. 6, pp. 417–22).
Freelon, D. (2013). Discourse architecture, ideology, and democratic norms in online political discussion. New Media & Society, 1461444813513259.Google Scholar
Freelon, D. G. (2010). Analyzing online political discussion using three models of democratic communication. New Media & Society, 12(7), 1172–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gainsborough, J. F. (2001). Fenced Off: The Suburbanization of American Politics. Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Gayo-Avello, D. (2011a). All liaisons are dangerous when all your friends are known to us. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia (pp. 171–80). ACM.
Gayo-Avello, D. (2011b). Don't turn social media into another “Literary Digest” poll. Communications of the ACM, 54(10), 121–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gayo-Avello, D. (2012). No, you cannot predict elections with Twitter. Internet Computing, IEEE, 16(6), 91–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gayo-Avello, D. (2013). A meta-analysis of state-of-the-art electoral prediction from Twitter data. Social Science Computer Review, 31(6), 649–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsberg, J., Mohebbi, M. H., Patel, R. S., Brammer, L., Smolinski, M. S., & Brilliant, L. (2009). Detecting influenza epidemics using search engine query data. Nature, 457(7232), 1012–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glenn, N. D., & Hill, L. (1977). Rural-urban differences in attitudes and behavior in the United States. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 429(1), 36–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golbeck, J., & Hansen, D. (2011). Computing political preference among Twitter followers. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1105–8). ACM.CrossRef
Grandi, U., Loreggia, A., Rossi, F., & Saraswat, V. (2014). From sentiment analysis to preference aggregation. In Proceedings of the 2014 International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Mathematics (ISAIM-2014). AAAI Press.
Green, D. P., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2004). Partisan Hearts and Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identities of Voters. Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Green, J. C., Smidt, C. E., Guth, J. L., & Kellstedt, L. A. (2005). The American religious landscape and the 2004 presidential vote: increased polarization. Paper circulated by Bliss Institute, University of Akron.
Habermas, J. (1991). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hertzog, M. (1996). The Lavender Vote: Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals in American Electoral Politics. NYU Press.Google Scholar
Huberty, M. E. (2013). Multi-cycle forecasting of congressional elections with social media. In Proceedings of the 2nd workshop on Politics, Elections and Data (pp. 23–30). ACM.CrossRef
Huberty,, M. E. (2015). Awaiting the second big data revolution: From digital noise to value creation. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade. Online first article.CrossRef
Jalalzai, F. (2009). The politics of Muslims in America. Politics and Religion, 2(02), 163–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jansen, B. J., Zhang, M., Sobel, K., & Chowdury, A. (2009). Twitter power: tweets as electronic word of mouth. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(11), 2169–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, M. J., & Anstead, N. (2013). Psephological investigations: tweets, votes, and unknown unknowns in the republican nomination process. Policy & Internet, 5(2), 161–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jungherr, A., Jürgens, P., & Schoen, H. (2012). Why the Pirate Party won the German election of 2009 or the trouble with predictions: a response to Tumasjan, A., Sprenger, T.O., Sander, P.G., & Welpe, I.M. “Predicting elections with Twitter: what 140 characters reveal about political sentiment.” Social Science Computer Review, 30(2), 229–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalampokis, E., Tambouris, E., & Tarabanis, K. (2013). Understanding the predictive power of social media. Internet Research, 23(5), 544–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klimek, P., Yegorov, Y., Hanel, R., & Thurner, S. (2012). Statistical detection of systematic election irregularities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(41), 16469–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lampos, V. (2012). On voting intentions inference from Twitter content: a case study on UK 2010 general election. arXiv preprint arXiv:1204.0423.
Lampos, V., De Bie, T., & Cristianini, N. (2010). Flu detector-tracking epidemics on Twitter. In Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases (pp. 599–602). SpringerBerlin Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Lampos, V., Preotiuc-Pietro, D., & Cohn, T. (2013). A user-centric model of voting intention from social media. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 993–1003). Association for Computational Linguistics.
Lansdall-Welfare, T., Lampos, V., & Cristianini, N. (2012). Nowcasting the mood of the nation. Significance, 9(4), 26–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laver, M., Benoit, K., & Garry, J. (2003). Extracting policy positions from political texts using words as data. American Political Science Review, 97(02), 311–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leighley, J. E., & Nagler, J. (1992). Individual and systemic influences on turnout: who votes? 1984. Journal of Politics, 54(03), 718–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Livne, A., Simmons, M. P., Adar, E., & Adamic, L. A. (2011). The party is over here: structure and content in the 2010 election. ICWSM (July).
Marchetti-Bowick, M., & Chambers, N. (2012). Learning for microblogs with distant supervision: political forecasting with Twitter. In Proceedings of the 13th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 603–12). Association for Computational Linguistics.
Mejova, Y. A. (2012). Sentiment analysis within and across social media streams. Ph.D. (doctor of philosophy) thesis, available at http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/2943.
Mendoza, M., Poblete, B., & Castillo, C. (2010). Twitter under crisis: can we trust what we RT? In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Social Media Analytics (pp. 71–79). ACM.CrossRef
Metaxas, P. T., & Mustafaraj, E. (2010). From obscurity to prominence in minutes: political speech and real-time search. In Proceedings of Web Science Conference 2010. ACM.
Metaxas, P. T., & Mustafaraj, E. (2012). Social media and the elections. Science, 338(6106), 472–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Metaxas, P. T., Mustafaraj, E., & Gayo-Avello, D. (2011). How (not) to predict elections. In Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust (PASSAT), 2011 IEEE Third International Conference on and 2011 IEEE Third International Conference on Social Computing (SocialCom) (pp. 165–71). IEEE.CrossRef
Miller, P. V. (1995). The industry of public opinion. In Public Opinion and the Communication of Consent, ed. Theodore L. Glasser and Charles T. Salmon (pp. 105–31). Guilford Press.
Mislove, A., Lehmann, S., Ahn, Y. Y., Onnela, J. P., & Rosenquist, J. N. (2011). Understanding the demographics of Twitter users. ICWSM, 11 (5).
Mitchell, A., & Hitlin, P. (2013). Twitter reaction to events often at odds with overall public opinion. Technical Report. Pew Research Center.
Morstatter, F., Pfeffer, J., Liu, H., & Carley, K. M. (2013). Is the sample good enough? Comparing data from Twitter's streaming API with Twitter's firehose. In Proceedings of ICWSM. AAAI Press.
Mustafaraj, E., Finn, S., Whitlock, C., & Metaxas, P. T. (2011). Vocal minority versus silent majority: discovering the opinions of the long tail. In Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust (PASSAT), 2011 IEEE Third International Conference on and 2011 IEEE Third International Conference on Social Computing (SocialCom) (pp. 103–10). IEEE.CrossRef
O'Connor, B., Balasubramanyan, R., Routledge, B. R., & Smith, N. A. (2010). From tweets to polls: linking text sentiment to public opinion time series. ICWSM’10, 122–9.Google Scholar
Olson, L. R., & Green, J. C. (2006). The religion gap. PS: Political Science & Politics, 39(3), 455–9.Google Scholar
Pennacchiotti, M., & Popescu, A. M. (2011a). A machine learning approach to Twitter user classification. In Proceedings of the Fifth International AAAI Conferences on Weblogs and Social Media (pp. 281–8). AAAI Press.
Pennacchiotti, M., & Popescu, A. M. (2011b). Democrats, Republicans and Starbucks afficionados: user classification in Twitter. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (pp. 430–8). ACM.
Rao, D., Yarowsky, D., Shreevats, A., & Gupta, M. (2010). Classifying latent user attributes in Twitter. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Search and Mining User-Generated Contents (pp. 37–44). ACM.CrossRef
Ratkiewicz, J., Conover, M., Meiss, M., Gonçalves, B., Flammini, A., & Menczer, F. (2011a). Detecting and tracking political abuse in social media. In Proceedings of the Fifth International AAAI Conferences on Weblogs and Social Media (pp. 297–304). AAAI.
Ratkiewicz, J., Conover, M., Meiss, M., Gonçalves, B., Patil, S., Flammini, A., & Menczer, F. (2011b). Truthy: mapping the spread of astroturf in microblog streams. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference Companion on the World Wide Web (pp. 249–52). ACM.
Reyes, Antonio, Rosso, Paolo, and Buscaldi, Davide. From humor recognition to irony detection: the figurative language of social media. Data & Knowledge Engineering 74 (2012), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, R. (2013). Foreword: Debanalising Twitter (vol. 89, pp. ix–xxvi). Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Rossi, F., Venable, K. B., & Walsh, T. (2011). A short introduction to preferences: between artificial intelligence and social choice. Synthesis Lectures on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning, 5(4), 1–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sang, E. T. K., & Bos, J. (2012). Predicting the 2011 Dutch senate election results with Twitter. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Semantic Analysis in Social Media (pp. 53–60). Association for Computational Linguistics.
Sauerzopf, R., & Swanstrom, T. (1999). The urban electorate in presidential elections, 1920–1996. Urban Affairs Review, 35(1), 72–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoen, H., Gayo-Avello, D., Metaxas, P. T., Mustafaraj, E., Strohmaier, M., & Gloor, P. (2013). The power of prediction with social media. Internet Research, 23(5), 528–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seltzer, R., Newman, J., & Leighton, M. V. (1997). Sex as a Political Variable: Women as Candidates and Voters in US Elections. Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
Shapiro, R. Y., & Mahajan, H. (1986). Gender differences in policy preferences: a summary of trends from the 1960s to the 1980s. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50(1), 42–61.
Sherrill, K. (1996). The political power of lesbians, gays, and bisexuals. PS: Political Science & Politics, 29(03), 469–73.Google Scholar
Shi, L., Agarwal, N., Agrawal, A., Garg, R., & Spoelstra, J. (2012). Predicting US primary elections with Twitter. In Proceedings of Social Network and Social Media Analysis: Methods, Models and Applications (NIPS Workshop), Lake Tahoe, NV, December, vol. 7.
Signorini, A., Segre, A. M., & Polgreen, P. M. (2011). The use of Twitter to track levels of disease activity and public concern in the US during the influenza A H1N1 pandemic. PLOS ONE, 6(5), e19467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skoric, M., Poor, N., Achananuparp, P., Lim, E. P., & Jiang, J. (2012). Tweets and votes: a study of the 2011 Singapore general election. In 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Science (HICSS) (pp. 2583–91). IEEE.CrossRef
Tam, W. K. (1995). Asians – a monolithic voting bloc?Political Behavior, 17(2), 223–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tate, K. (ed.). (1994). From Protest to Politics: The New Black Voters in American Elections.Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tavares, G., & Faisal, A. (2013). Scaling-laws of human broadcast communication enable distinction between human, corporate and robot twitter users. PLOS ONE, 8(7), e65774.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tufekci, Z. (2014). Big questions for social media big data: representativeness, validity and other methodological pitfalls. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. AAAI.
Tumasjan, A., Sprenger, T. O., Sandner, P. G., & Welpe, I. M. (2010). Predicting elections with Twitter: what 140 characters reveal about political sentiment. ICWSM, 10, 178–85.Google Scholar
Turney, P. D. (2002). Thumbs up or thumbs down? Semantic orientation applied to unsupervised classification of reviews. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 417–424). Association for Computational Linguistics.
Van Dijck, J. (2013). The Culture of Connectivity: A Critical History of Social Media. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Venkataraman, M., Subbalakshmi, K. P., & Chandramouli, R. (2012, May). Measuring and quantifying the silent majority on the Internet. In Sarnoff Symposium (SARNOFF), 2012 35th IEEE (pp. 1–5). IEEE.
Volkova, S., Coppersmith, G., & Van Dume, B. (2014). Inferring user political preferences from streaming communications. In Proceedings of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL). Association for Computational Linguistics.CrossRef
Walks, R. A. (2006). The causes of city-suburban political polarization? A Canadian case study. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 96(2), 390–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wattenberg, Martin P. (2008). Is Voting for Young People? With a Postscript on Citizen Engagement. Longman.Google Scholar
Weber, I., Garimella, V. R. K., & Batayneh, A. (2013). Secular vs. Islamist polarization in Egypt on Twitter. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (pp. 290–7). ACM.
Wilson, T., Wiebe, J., & Hoffmann, P. (2005). Recognizing contextual polarity in phrase-level sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Language Technology and Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 347–54). Association for Computational Linguistics.CrossRef
Wolfinger, R. E. (1980). Who Votes? (Vol. 22). Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Wong, F. M. F., Sen, S., & Chiang, M. (2012). Why watching movie tweets won't tell the whole story? In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Workshop on Workshop on Online Social Networks (pp. 61–6). ACM.
Yu, B., Kaufmann, S., & Diermeier, D. (2008). Exploring the characteristics of opinion expressions for political opinion classification. In Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Digital Government Research (pp. 82–91). Digital Government Society of North America.
Zhang, C. M., & Paxson, V. (2011, January). Detecting and analyzing automated activity on Twitter. In Passive and Active Measurement, ed. Neil Spring and George F. Riley (pp. 102–11). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×