Shamik Roy

Bio: Shamik Roy is an academic researcher from Purdue University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Polarization (politics) & Morality. The author has an hindex of 2, co-authored 6 publications receiving 21 citations.

Weakly Supervised Learning of Nuanced Frames for Analyzing Polarization in News Media

Abstract: In this paper, we suggest a minimally supervised approach for identifying nuanced frames in news article coverage of politically divisive topics. We suggest to break the broad policy frames suggested by Boydstun et al., 2014 into fine-grained subframes which can capture differences in political ideology in a better way. We evaluate the suggested subframes and their embedding, learned using minimal supervision, over three topics, namely, immigration, gun-control, and abortion. We demonstrate the ability of the subframes to capture ideological differences and analyze political discourse in news media.

Weakly Supervised Learning of Nuanced Frames for Analyzing Polarization in News Media

Abstract: In this paper we suggest a minimally-supervised approach for identifying nuanced frames in news article coverage of politically divisive topics. We suggest to break the broad policy frames suggested by Boydstun et al., 2014 into fine-grained subframes which can capture differences in political ideology in a better way. We evaluate the suggested subframes and their embedding, learned using minimal supervision, over three topics, namely, immigration, gun-control and abortion. We demonstrate the ability of the subframes to capture ideological differences and analyze political discourse in news media.

Analysis of Nuanced Stances and Sentiment Towards Entities of US Politicians through the Lens of Moral Foundation Theory.

Abstract: The Moral Foundation Theory suggests five moral foundations that can capture the view of a user on a particular issue. It is widely used to identify sentence-level sentiment. In this paper, we study the Moral Foundation Theory in tweets by US politicians on two politically divisive issues - Gun Control and Immigration. We define the nuanced stance of politicians on these two topics by the grades given by related organizations to the politicians. First, we identify moral foundations in tweets from a huge corpus using deep relational learning. Then, qualitative and quantitative evaluations using the corpus show that there is a strong correlation between the moral foundation usage and the politicians’ nuanced stance on a particular topic. We also found substantial differences in moral foundation usage by different political parties when they address different entities. All of these results indicate the need for more intense research in this area.

Identifying Morality Frames in Political Tweets using Relational Learning

Abstract: Extracting moral sentiment from text is a vital component in understanding public opinion, social movements, and policy decisions. The Moral Foundation Theory identifies five moral foundations, each associated with a positive and negative polarity. However, moral sentiment is often motivated by its targets, which can correspond to individuals or collective entities. In this paper, we introduce morality frames, a representation framework for organizing moral attitudes directed at different entities, and come up with a novel and high-quality annotated dataset of tweets written by US politicians. Then, we propose a relational learning model to predict moral attitudes towards entities and moral foundations jointly. We do qualitative and quantitative evaluations, showing that moral sentiment towards entities differs highly across political ideologies.

Modeling Framing in Immigration Discourse on Social Media

Abstract: The framing of political issues can influence policy and public opinion. Even though the public plays a key role in creating and spreading frames, little is known about how ordinary people on social media frame political issues. By creating a new dataset of immigration-related tweets labeled for multiple framing typologies from political communication theory, we develop supervised models to detect frames. We demonstrate how users’ ideology and region impact framing choices, and how a message’s framing influences audience responses. We find that the more commonly-used issue-generic frames obscure important ideological and regional patterns that are only revealed by immigration-specific frames. Furthermore, frames oriented towards human interests, culture, and politics are associated with higher user engagement. This large-scale analysis of a complex social and linguistic phenomenon contributes to both NLP and social science research.

Can Large Language Models Transform Computational Social Science?

Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT are capable of successfully performing many language processing tasks zero-shot (without the need for training data). If this capacity also applies to the coding of social phenomena like persuasiveness and political ideology, then LLMs could effectively transform Computational Social Science (CSS). This work provides a road map for using LLMs as CSS tools. Towards this end, we contribute a set of prompting best practices and an extensive evaluation pipeline to measure the zero-shot performance of 13 language models on 24 representative CSS benchmarks. On taxonomic labeling tasks (classification), LLMs fail to outperform the best fine-tuned models but still achieve fair levels of agreement with humans. On free-form coding tasks (generation), LLMs produce explanations that often exceed the quality of crowdworkers' gold references. We conclude that today's LLMs can radically augment the CSS research pipeline in two ways: (1) serving as zero-shot data annotators on human annotation teams, and (2) bootstrapping challenging creative generation tasks (e.g., explaining the hidden meaning behind text). In summary, LLMs can significantly reduce costs and increase efficiency of social science analysis in partnership with humans.

DeSMOG: Detecting Stance in Media On Global Warming

Abstract: Citing opinions is a powerful yet understudied strategy in argumentation. For example, an environmental activist might say, "Leading scientists agree that global warming is a serious concern," framing a clause which affirms their own stance ("that global warming is serious") as an opinion endorsed ("[scientists] agree") by a reputable source ("leading"). In contrast, a global warming denier might frame the same clause as the opinion of an untrustworthy source with a predicate connoting doubt: "Mistaken scientists claim [...]." Our work studies opinion-framing in the global warming (GW) debate, an increasingly partisan issue that has received little attention in NLP. We introduce DeSMOG, a dataset of stance-labeled GW sentences, and train a BERT classifier to study novel aspects of argumentation in how different sides of a debate represent their own and each other's opinions. From 56K news articles, we find that similar linguistic devices for self-affirming and opponent-doubting discourse are used across GW-accepting and skeptic media, though GW-skeptical media shows more opponent-doubt. We also find that authors often characterize sources as hypocritical, by ascribing opinions expressing the author's own view to source entities known to publicly endorse the opposing view. We release our stance dataset, model, and lexicons of framing devices for future work on opinion-framing and the automatic detection of GW stance.

Computational analysis of 140 years of US political speeches reveals more positive but increasingly polarized framing of immigration

Abstract: Significance In the first comprehensive quantitative analysis of the past 140 y of US congressional and presidential speech about immigration, we identify a dramatic rise in proimmigration attitudes beginning in the 1940s, followed by a steady decline among Republicans (relative to Democrats) over the past 50 y. We also reveal divergent usage of positive (e.g., families) and negative (e.g., crime) frames—over time, by party, and between frequently mentioned European and non-European groups. Finally, to capture more suggestive language, we introduce a method for measuring implicit dehumanizing metaphors long associated with immigration (animals, cargo, etc.) and show that such metaphorical language has been significantly more common in speeches by Republicans than Democrats in recent decades.

DeSMOG: Detecting Stance in Media On Global Warming

Abstract: Citing opinions is a powerful yet understudied strategy in argumentation. For example, an environmental activist might say, “Leading scientists agree that global warming is a serious concern,” framing a clause which affirms their own stance (“that global warming is serious”) as an opinion endorsed ("[scientists] agree”) by a reputable source (“leading”). In contrast, a global warming denier might frame the same clause as the opinion of an untrustworthy source with a predicate connoting doubt: “Mistaken scientists claim [...]." Our work studies opinion-framing in the global warming (GW) debate, an increasingly partisan issue that has received little attention in NLP. We introduce DeSMOG, a dataset of stance-labeled GW sentences, and train a BERT classifier to study novel aspects of argumentation in how different sides of a debate represent their own and each other’s opinions. From 56K news articles, we find that similar linguistic devices for self-affirming and opponent-doubting discourse are used across GW-accepting and skeptic media, though GW-skeptical media shows more opponent-doubt. We also find that authors often characterize sources as hypocritical, by ascribing opinions expressing the author’s own view to source entities known to publicly endorse the opposing view. We release our stance dataset, model, and lexicons of framing devices for future work on opinion-framing and the automatic detection of GW stance.