|
View: |
Part 1: Document Description
|
|
Citation |
|
|---|---|
|
Title: |
Replication Data for: Beyond Standardization: A Comprehensive Review of Topic Modeling Validation Methods for Computational Social Science Research |
|
Identification Number: |
doi:10.7910/DVN/N67BDI |
|
Distributor: |
Harvard Dataverse |
|
Date of Distribution: |
2025-04-25 |
|
Version: |
2 |
|
Bibliographic Citation: |
Bernhard-Harrer, Jana, 2025, "Replication Data for: Beyond Standardization: A Comprehensive Review of Topic Modeling Validation Methods for Computational Social Science Research", https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/N67BDI, Harvard Dataverse, V2 |
|
Citation |
|
|
Title: |
Replication Data for: Beyond Standardization: A Comprehensive Review of Topic Modeling Validation Methods for Computational Social Science Research |
|
Identification Number: |
doi:10.7910/DVN/N67BDI |
|
Authoring Entity: |
Bernhard-Harrer, Jana (Universität Wien) |
|
Producer: |
Enter your name here: LastName, FirstName |
|
Distributor: |
Harvard Dataverse |
|
Access Authority: |
Bernhard-Harrer, Jana |
|
Depositor: |
Bernhard-Harrer, Jana |
|
Date of Deposit: |
2025-04-24 |
|
Holdings Information: |
https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/N67BDI |
|
Study Scope |
|
|
Keywords: |
Social Sciences |
|
Abstract: |
copy directly from abstract in PSRM publicationAs the use of computational text analysis in the social sciences has increased, topic modeling has emerged as a popular method for identifying latent themes in textual data. Nevertheless, concerns have been raised regarding the validity of the results produced by this method, given that it is largely automated and inductive in nature, and the lack of clear guidelines for validating topic models has been identified by scholars as an area of concern. In response, we conducted a comprehensive systematic review of 789 studies that employ topic modeling. Our goal is to investigate whether the field is moving towards a common framework for validating these models. The findings of our review indicate a notable absence of standardized validation practices and a lack of convergence towards specific methods of validation. This gap may be attributed to the inherent incompatibility between the inductive, qualitative approach of topic modeling and the deductive, quantitative tradition that favors standardized validation. To address this, we advocate for incorporating qualitative validation approaches, emphasizing transparency and detailed reporting to improve the credibility of findings in computational social science research, when using topic modeling. |
|
Methodology and Processing |
|
|
Sources Statement |
|
|
Data Access |
|
|
Notes: |
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0">CC0 1.0</a> |
|
Other Study Description Materials |
|
|
Label: |
ReplicationDataset.csv |
|
Notes: |
text/csv |
|
Label: |
ReplicationNotebook.ipynb |
|
Notes: |
application/x-ipynb+json |
|
Label: |
ReplicationNotebook_Log.pdf |
|
Notes: |
application/pdf |