Measuring Paradigmaticness of Disciplines Using Text

Evans, Eliza D.; Gomez, Charles J.; McFarland, Daniel A.

doi:10.15195/v3.a32

Cited by 29 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In these studies, the greater the concentration of organizations in a category, the more salient the existence of a prototype, making the definition of a category sharper while strengthening the category's boundaries. Such measurement also meshes well with literature in the sociology of science, in which studies have operationalized how paradigmatic a given field is with the extent to which key terms are concentrated across the body of its publications (Evans, Gomez, and McFarland 2016). Another possibility would be to calculate an entropy index.…”

Section: Independent Variables: Claim Cohesion and Claim Focusmentioning

confidence: 62%

Crossing Categorical Boundaries: A Study of Diversification by Social Movement Organizations

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When do protest organizations borrow issues or claims that are outside their traditional domains? Sociologists have examined the consequences of borrowing claims across movement boundaries, but not the antecedents of doing so. We argue that movement boundaries are strong when there is consensus about the core claims of a social movement, which we measure by cohesion and focus. Cohesion and focus enhance the legitimacy of a movement and impede member organizations from adopting claims associated with other movements. Analyzing movement organizational activity at U.S.-based protest events from 1960 to 1995, we find that a social movement organization is less likely to adopt claims from other movements when the social movement in which it is embedded exhibits high cohesion and focus. However, when movement organizations do borrow claims, they are more likely to do so by borrowing from movements that themselves exhibit high cohesion and focus. We describe the application of our findings to organization theory, social movements, and field theoretic approaches to understanding social action.

show abstract

Section: Independent Variables: Claim Cohesion and Claim Focusmentioning

confidence: 62%

Crossing Categorical Boundaries: A Study of Diversification by Social Movement Organizations

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our work fits within this line of research and extends it in novel ways. Similar to prior work, we use an information-theoretic notion of entropy and surprisal to model linguistic relationships (Hughes et al, 2012;Bochkarev et al, 2014;Fankhauser et al, 2014;Vilhena et al, 2014;Evans et al, 2016;Degaetano-Ortlieb, 2018;Degaetano-Ortlieb and Teich, 2018). The consideration of analyzing language change and the development of sublanguages from an informationtheoretic perspective goes back to Harris (1991): in striving for successful communication, distinctive codes develop which facilitate communication -over time and within subgroups.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Scientization of Literary Study

Degaetano-Ortlieb

Piper

2019

Proceedings of the 3rd Joint SIGHUM Workshop on Computational Linguistics for Cultural Heritage, Social Sciences, Humanities An

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scholarly practices within the humanities have historically been perceived as distinct from the natural sciences. We look at literary studies, a discipline strongly anchored in the humanities, and hypothesize that over the past half-century literary studies has instead undergone a process of "scientization", adopting linguistic behavior similar to the sciences. We test this using methods based on information theory, comparing a corpus of literary studies articles (around 63,400) with a corpus of standard English and scientific English respectively. We show evidence for "scientization" effects in literary studies, though at a more muted level than scientific English, suggesting that literary studies occupies a middle ground with respect to standard English in the larger space of academic disciplines. More generally, our methodology can be applied to investigate the social positioning and development of language use across different domains (e.g. scientific disciplines, language varieties, registers).

show abstract

“…Vilhena et al (2014) have examined the linguistic relationships between disciplines and the linguistic development of interdisciplinary disciplines. Recent work has also studied the notion of paradigmaticness with respect to linguistic behavior within disciplines (Evans et al, 2016). Based on the idea of the productivity of scientific "paradigms" inherited from the work of Thomas Kuhn (Kuhn, 1962), Evans et al (2016) observe distinctions between disciplines based on the extent of linguistic consensus and marginal innovation.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Our work fits within this line of research and extends it in novel ways. Similar to prior work, we use an information-theoretic notion of entropy and surprisal to model linguistic relationships Bochkarev et al, 2014;Fankhauser et al, 2014;Vilhena et al, 2014;Evans et al, 2016;Degaetano-Ortlieb, 2018;Degaetano-Ortlieb and Teich, 2018). The consideration of analyzing language change and the development of sublanguages from an informationtheoretic perspective goes back to Harris (1991): in striving for successful communication, distinctive codes develop which facilitate communication -over time and within subgroups.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Proceedings of the 3rd Joint SIGHUM Workshop on Computational Linguistics for Cultural Heritage, Social Sciences, Humanities and Literature

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Welcome to the third edition of LaTeCH-CLfL-which also is the thirteenth edition of LaTeCH and eighth of CLfL. We have had fun preparing the workshop, and we will be happy if you have fun attending (or at least reading the workshop papers:). Please visit the website at https://sighum.wordpress.com/events/latech-clfl-2019/ where you will find the workshop presentations, among other things. The papers cover, as usual, topics which you will not easily find at regular NLP conferences. The authors take on literary texts, including drama and poetry, and more generally literary study; historical texts; ancient or otherwise old languages; government documents; code switching; and more. Last but certainly not least, we will have an invited talk. Ian Milligan, a historian, has a deep interest in Digital Humanities, and understands the role on Natural Language Processing in his discipline. It is our pleasant duty to thank the authors: there would be no workshop without you. Nor without the program committee, to whom we are ever so grateful for their thorough and helpful reviews.

show abstract

Measuring Paradigmaticness of Disciplines Using Text

Cited by 29 publications

References 24 publications

Crossing Categorical Boundaries: A Study of Diversification by Social Movement Organizations

Crossing Categorical Boundaries: A Study of Diversification by Social Movement Organizations

The Scientization of Literary Study

Proceedings of the 3rd Joint SIGHUM Workshop on Computational Linguistics for Cultural Heritage, Social Sciences, Humanities and Literature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About