Advertisement

Measuring Perceived Causal Relationships Between Narrative Events with a Crowdsourcing Application on Mturk

  • Dian HuEmail author
  • David A. Broniatowski
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10354)

Abstract

The computational study of narrative is important to multiple academic disciplines. However, prior research has been limited by the inability to quantify each subject’s comprehension of the causal structure. With the aid of big data technology and crowdsourcing tools, we aim to design a new approach to analyze the content of narratives in a data-driven manner, while also making these analyses scientifically replicable. The goal of this research is therefore to develop a method that can be used to measure people’s understanding of the causal relationships within a piece of text.

Keywords

Crowdsourcing Narrative Network Causal relationships 

Notes

Acknowledgment and Disclaimer

This work was supported in part by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences under grant number 5R01GM114771. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

References

  1. 1.
    Bird, S., et al.: Natural Language Processing with Python. O’Reilly Media, Inc. (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boyd, S., et al.: Randomized gossip algorithms. IEEE/ACM Trans. Networking (TON) 14(SI), 2508–2530 (2006)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Broniatowski, D.A., et al.: Effective vaccine communication during the Disneyland measles outbreak. Vaccine 34(28), 3225–3228 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Buhrmester, M., et al.: Amazon’s Mechanical Turk a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 6(1), 3–5 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Callison-Burch, C., Dredze, M.: Creating speech and language data with Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. In: Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2010 Workshop on Creating Speech and Language Data with Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, pp. 1–12. Association for Computational Linguistics (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cowan, R., Jonard, N.: Network structure and the diffusion of knowledge. J. Econ. Dyn. Control 28(8), 1557–1575 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Del Vicario, M., et al.: The spreading of misinformation online. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113(3), 554–559 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dredze, M., et al.: Zika vaccine misconceptions: a social media analysis. Vaccine 34(30), 3441 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gernsbacher, M.A., et al.: Investigating differences in general comprehension skill. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Memory Cogn. 16(3), 430 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Heitkötter, H., Hanschke, S., Majchrzak, Tim A.: Evaluating cross-platform development approaches for mobile applications. In: Cordeiro, J., Krempels, K.-H. (eds.) WEBIST 2012. LNBIP, vol. 140, pp. 120–138. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-36608-6_8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hu, D., Broniatowski, D.A.: Designing a Crowdsourcing Tool to Measure Perceived Causal Relationships Between Narrative Events. http://sbp-brims.org/2016/proceedings/LB_129.pdf
  12. 12.
    Kintsch, W., Van Dijk, T.A.: Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychol. Rev. 85(5), 363 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kozinets, R.V., et al.: Networked narratives: Understanding word-of-mouth marketing in online communities. J. Mark. 74(2), 71–89 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Leskovec, J., Sosič, R.: SNAP: a general purpose network analysis and graph mining library in C++, June 2014. http://snap.stanford.edu/snap
  15. 15.
    McKoon, G., Ratcliff, R.: Inference during reading. Psychol. Rev. 99(3), 440 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shutters, S.T., Cutts, B.B.: A simulation model of cultural consensus and persistent conflict. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Computational Cultural Dynamics, pp. 71–78 (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Singer, M., et al.: Minimal or global inference during reading. J. Mem. Lang. 33(4), 421 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Trabasso, T., et al.: Logical necessity and transitivity of causal relations in stories. Discourse Processes 12(1), 1–25 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Trabasso, T.: Causal cohesion and story coherence (1982)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Trabasso, T., Van Den Broek, P.: Causal thinking and the representation of narrative events. J. Mem. Lang. 24(5), 612–630 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Van den Broek, P., et al.: The landscape model of reading: Inferences and the online construction of a memory representation. The construction of mental representations during reading, pp. 71–98 (1999)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Winterbottom, A., et al.: Does narrative information bias individual’s decision making? A systematic review. Soc. Sci. Med. 67(12), 2079–2088 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Engineering Management and Systems EngineeringThe George Washington UniversityWashington, DCUSA

Personalised recommendations