Human vs. LMMs: Exploring the Discrepancy in Emoji Interpretation and Usage in Digital Communication

Leveraging Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) to simulate human behaviors when processing multimodal information, especially in the context of social media, has garnered immense interest due to its broad potential and far-reaching implications. Emojis, as one of the most unique aspects of digital communication, are pivotal in enriching and often clarifying the emotional and tonal dimensions. Yet, there is a notable gap in understanding how these advanced models, such as GPT-4V, interpret and employ emojis in the nuanced context of online interaction. This study intends to bridge this gap by examining the behavior of GPT-4V in replicating human-like use of emojis. The findings reveal a discernible discrepancy between human and GPT-4V behaviors, likely due to the subjective nature of human interpretation and the limitations of GPT-4V's English-centric training, suggesting cultural biases and inadequate representation of non-English cultures.

Beyond Sentiment: Leveraging Topic Metrics for Political Stance Classification

Sentiment analysis, widely critiqued for capturing merely the overall tone of a corpus, falls short in accurately reflecting the latent structures and political stances within texts. This study introduces topic metrics, dummy variables converted from extracted topics, as both an alternative and complement to sentiment metrics in stance classification. By employing three datasets identified by Bestvater and Monroe (2023), this study demonstrates BERTopic's proficiency in extracting coherent topics and the effectiveness of topic metrics in stance classification. The experiment results show that BERTopic improves coherence scores by 17.07% to 54.20% when compared to traditional approaches such as Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) and Non-negative Matrix Factorization (NMF), prevalent in earlier political science research. Additionally, our results indicate topic metrics outperform sentiment metrics in stance classification, increasing performance by as much as 18.95%. Our findings suggest topic metrics are especially effective for context-rich texts and corpus where stance and sentiment correlations are weak. The combination of sentiment and topic metrics achieve an optimal performance in most of the scenarios and can further address the limitations of relying solely on sentiment as well as the low coherence score of topic metrics.

Understanding Divergent Framing of the Supreme Court Controversies: Social Media vs. News Outlets

Understanding the framing of political issues is of paramount importance as it significantly shapes how individuals perceive, interpret, and engage with these matters. While prior research has independently explored framing within news media and by social media users, there remains a notable gap in our comprehension of the disparities in framing political issues between these two distinct groups. To address this gap, we conduct a comprehensive investigation, focusing on the nuanced distinctions both qualitatively and quantitatively in the framing of social media and traditional media outlets concerning a series of American Supreme Court rulings on affirmative action, student loans, and abortion rights. Our findings reveal that, while some overlap in framing exists between social media and traditional media outlets, substantial differences emerge both across various topics and within specific framing categories. Compared to traditional news media, social media platforms tend to present more polarized stances across all framing categories. Further, we observe significant polarization in the news media's treatment (i.e., Left vs. Right leaning media) of affirmative action and abortion rights, whereas the topic of student loans tends to exhibit a greater degree of consensus. The disparities in framing between traditional and social media platforms carry significant implications for the formation of public opinion, policy decision-making, and the broader political landscape.

Bias or Diversity? Unraveling Semantic Discrepancy in U.S. News Headlines

There is a broad consensus that news media outlets incorporate ideological biases in their news articles. However, prior studies on measuring the discrepancies among media outlets and further dissecting the origins of semantic differences suffer from small sample sizes and limited scope. In this study, we collect a large dataset of 1.8 million news headlines from major U.S. media outlets spanning from 2014 to 2022 to thoroughly track and dissect the semantic discrepancy in U.S. news media. We employ multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) to quantify the semantic discrepancy relating to four prominent topics - domestic politics, economic issues, social issues, and foreign affairs. Additionally, we compare the most frequent n-grams in media headlines to provide further qualitative insights into our analysis. Our findings indicate that on domestic politics and social issues, the discrepancy can be attributed to a certain degree of media bias. Meanwhile, the discrepancy in reporting foreign affairs is largely attributed to the diversity in individual journalistic styles. Finally, U.S. media outlets show consistency and high similarity in their coverage of economic issues.