Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis
- The Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Editors’ Preface
- Organization of This Handbook
- How to Work with This Handbook
- Part I Background and Theory
- Part II Application Areas of Interaction Analysis
- Part III Methodology and Procedures of Interaction Analysis
- Part IV Data Analysis and Data Presentation
- 14 Coding and Counting
- 15 Analysis of Interaction Sequences
- 16 Temporal Patterns in Interactions
- 17 Interdependence in Small Group Discussion
- 18 Coding and Analyzing Multiple Levels
- 19 Introduction to Machine Learning
- 20 TINT
- Part V Coding Schemes for Interaction Research
- Appendix
- Index
- References
19 - Introduction to Machine Learning
Teaching Computers to Code Group Interaction Data
from Part IV - Data Analysis and Data Presentation
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 July 2018
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis
- The Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Editors’ Preface
- Organization of This Handbook
- How to Work with This Handbook
- Part I Background and Theory
- Part II Application Areas of Interaction Analysis
- Part III Methodology and Procedures of Interaction Analysis
- Part IV Data Analysis and Data Presentation
- 14 Coding and Counting
- 15 Analysis of Interaction Sequences
- 16 Temporal Patterns in Interactions
- 17 Interdependence in Small Group Discussion
- 18 Coding and Analyzing Multiple Levels
- 19 Introduction to Machine Learning
- 20 TINT
- Part V Coding Schemes for Interaction Research
- Appendix
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis , pp. 387 - 404Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Auld, F. Jr., & White, A. M. (1956). Rules for dividing interviews into sentences. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary & Applied, 42, 273–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1956.9713040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Beck, S. J., & Keyton, J. (2009). Perceiving strategic meeting interaction. Small Group Research, 40, 223–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496408330084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonito, J. A. (2001). An information-processing approach to participation in small groups. Communication Research, 28, 275–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365001028003002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonito, J. A. (2003). A social relations analysis of participation in small groups. Communication Monographs, 70, 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/0363775032000133755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonito, J. A., Keyton, J., & Ervin, J. N. (2017). Role-related participation in product design teams: Individual- and group-level trends. Communication Research, 44(2), 263–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215618759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonito, J. A., & Meyers, R. A. (2011). Examining functional communication as egocentric or group-centric: Application of a latent group model. Communication Monographs, 78, 463–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2011.618138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burscher, B., Odijk, D., Vliegenthart, R., Rijke, M., & de Vreese, C. H. (2014). Teaching the computer to code frames in news: Comparing two supervised machine learning approaches to frame analysis. Communication Methods and Measures, 8, 190–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2014.937527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burscher, B., van Spanje, J., & de Vreese, C. H. (2015). Owning the issues of crime and immigration: The relation between immigration and crime news and anti-immigrant voting in 11 countries. Electoral Studies, 38, 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2015.03.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carletta, J. (2007). Unleashing the killer corpus: Experiences in creating the multi-everything AMI Meeting Corpus. Language Resources and Evaluation, 41, 181–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-007-9040-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carletta, J., Ashby, S., Bourban, S., Flynn, M., Guillemot, M., Hain, T., … Wellner, P. (2006). The AMI meeting corpus: A pre-announcement. In Renals, S. & Bengio, S. (Eds.), Machine learning for multimodal interaction (Vol. 3869, pp. 28–39). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/11677482_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colleoni, E., Rozza, A., & Arvidsson, A. (2014). Echo chamber or public sphere? Predicting political orientation and measuring political homophily in twitter using big data. Journal of Communication, 64, 317–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, J. A. (1993). Principles and contrasting systems of discourse transcription. In Edwards, J. A. & Lampert, M. D. (Eds.), Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research (pp. 3–31). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ervin, J. N., Bonito, J. A., & Keyton, J. (2017). Convergence of intrapersonal and interpersonal processes across group meetings. Communication Monographs, 84, 200–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2016.1185136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feinerer, I., & Hornik, K. (2017). tm: Text Mining Package (Version R package version 0.7–1). Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=tmGoogle Scholar
Fushiki, T. (2011). Estimation of prediction error by using K-fold cross-validation. Statistics and Computing, 21, 137–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11222-009-9153-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorisch, J., Wells, B., & Brown, G. J. (2012). Pitch contour matching and interactional alignment across turns: An acoustic investigation. Language and Speech, 55, 57–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830911428874CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gouran, D. S., Hirokawa, R. Y., Julian, K. M., & Leatham, G. B. (1993). The evolution and current status of the functional perspective on communication in decision-making and problem-solving groups. In Anderson, J. (Ed.), Communication yearbook 16 (pp. 573–600). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Grimmer, J., & Stewart, B. M. (2013). Text as data: The promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts. Political Analysis, 21, 267–297. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/pan/mps028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guetzkow, H. (1950). Unitizing and categorizing problems in coding qualitative data. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 6, 47–58. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(195001)6:1%3C47::AID-JCLP2270060111%3E3.0.CO;2-I3.0.CO;2-I>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guidelines for Dialogue Act and Addressee Annotation Version 1.0. (2005). Retrieved February 14, 2018, from http://groups.inf.ed.ac.uk/ami/corpus/Guidelines/dialogue_acts_manual_1.0.pdfGoogle Scholar
Hain, T., Wan, V., Burget, L., Karafiat, M., Dines, J., Vepa, J., & Lincoln, M. (2007). The AMI system for the transcription of speech in meetings. In IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, 2007. ICASSP 2007 (Vol. 4, p. IV-357–IV-360). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICASSP.2007.366923Google Scholar
Hand, D. J. (2006). Classifier technology and the illusion of progress. Statistical Science, 21, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1214/088342306000000060Google Scholar
Interdisciplinary Insights into Group and Team Dynamics. (2017). Special Issue: Small Group Research, 48, 519–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivezić, Ž., Connolly, A. J., VanderPlas, J. T., & Gray, A. (2014). Statistics, data mining, and machine learning in astronomy: A practical Python guide for the analysis of survey data. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, G., Witten, D., Hastie, T., & Tibshirani, R. (2013). An introduction to statistical learning: with applications in R (1st edn. 2013, Corr. 6th printing 2016 edition). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarnow, J. (2016). Why our crazy-smart AI still sucks at transcribing speech. Retrieved March 16, 2017, from www.wired.com/2016/04/long-form-voice-transcription/Google Scholar
Jurka, T. P., Collingwood, L., Boydstun, A. E., Grossman, E., & van Atteveldt, W. (2014). RTextTools: Automatic text classification via supervised learning (Version R package version 1.4.2). Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=RTextToolsGoogle Scholar
Keyton, J., & Beck, S. J. (2009). The influential role of relational messages in group interaction. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 13, 14–30. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambert, B. L. (2001). Automatic content analysis of pharmacist-patient interactions using the Theme Machine document clustering system. In West, M. (Ed.), Progress in communication sciences, Volume 17: Applications of computer content analysis (pp. 103–122). Westport, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
Maas, A. L., Qi, P., Xie, Z., Hannun, A. Y., Lengerich, C. T., Jurafsky, D., & Ng, A. Y. (2017). Building DNN acoustic models for large vocabulary speech recognition. Computer Speech & Language, 41, 195–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csl.2016.06.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, D., Hornik, K., & Feinerer, I. (2008). Text mining infrastructure in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 25, 1–54. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v025.i05Google Scholar
Meyers, R. A. (1989). Testing persuasive argument theory’s predictor model: Alternative interactional accounts of group argument and influence. Communication Monographs, 56, 112–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758909390254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyers, R. A., & Brashers, D. E. (2010). Extending the conversational argument coding scheme: Argument categories, units, and coding procedures. Communication Methods and Measures, 4, 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312451003680467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, V., Boyd-Graber, J., Resnik, P., Cai, D. A., Midberry, J. E., & Wang, Y. (2014). Modeling topic control to detect influence in conversations using nonparametric topic models. Machine Learning, 95, 381–421. doi:10.1007/s10994-013-5417-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, M. S., & Folger, J. P. (1981). A method for establishing the representational validity of interaction coding systems: Do we see what they see? Human Communication Research, 8, 26–42. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1981.tb00654.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, L. L., & Stohl, C. (1990). Bona fide groups: A reconceptualization of groups in context. Communication Studies, 41, 248–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510979009368307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reidsma, D., Heylen, D., & Op Den Akker, R. (2009). On the contextual analysis of agreement scores. In Kipp, M., Martin, J., Paggio, P., & Heylen, D. (Eds.), Multimodal corpora: From models of natural interaction to systems and applications (pp. 122–137). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1809277.1809288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheerhorn, D., Geist, P., & Teboul, J. B. (1994). Beyond decision making in decision-making groups: Implications for the study of group communication. In Frey, L. R. (Ed.), Group communication in context: Studies of natural groups. (pp. 247–262). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (2003). Hidden profiles: A brief history. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 304–313. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1403&4_21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taboada, M., Brooke, J., Tofiloski, M., Voll, K., & Stede, M. (2011). Lexicon-based methods for sentiment analysis. Computational Linguistics, 37, 267–307. https://doi.org/10.1162/COLI_a_00049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsai, Y. (1977). Hierarchical structure of participation in natural groups. Behavioral Science, 22(1), 38–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830220106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittenbaum, G. M., Hollingshead, A. B., Paulus, P. B., Hirokawa, R. Y., Ancona, D. G., Peterson, R. S., & Yoon, K. (2004). The functional perspective as a lens for understanding groups. Small Group Research, 35, 17–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496403259459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7
- Cited by