Read on Twitter
Hey, communication theorist and frequent peer reviewer here.
If you& #39;re going to use a fancy automated computer program to run an analysis on content, please be sure that you have COMPLETELY UNPACKED how it works, what the classifiers are and how they were chosen...
If you& #39;re going to use a fancy automated computer program to run an analysis on content, please be sure that you have COMPLETELY UNPACKED how it works, what the classifiers are and how they were chosen...
Developing a "highly reliable" tool means nothing to Danna.
Of course it& #39;s reliable. It& #39;s a goddamned computer program.
Of course it& #39;s reliable. It& #39;s a goddamned computer program.
If you train it to categorize the word "the" to mean "a vegetable" ... it will be RELIABLE AND will tell you there are THOUSANDS OF VEGGIE REFERENCES IN EVERY PIECE OF CONTENT YOU EXAMINE.
"American News Media Has Vegetable Fetish," Computational Social Scientist concludes.
"American News Media Has Vegetable Fetish," Computational Social Scientist concludes.
Without a detailed understanding of WHY and HOW these coded constructs are being classified in this way, and what programming was involved in the first place, how do we assess the value of the work at all?
The more I see work like this the more I start to question how much time and attention doctoral programs are dedicating to the philosophy of science, epistemology, and the philosophy of meaning and perception.
