Skip to main content

The Online Debate Networks Analysis: A Case Study of Debates at Tianya Forum

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Knowledge and Systems Sciences (KSS 2016)

Part of the book series: Communications in Computer and Information Science ((CCIS,volume 660))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

In this study, we examine the characteristics of online debate networks. We empirically investigate the debate networks formed by three hot threads from Tianya Forum at individual, whole-network and triad levels. At the individual level, the statistical analysis reveals that people participate different threads about one issue; authors reply to themselves; the authors of the original posts are the core of the interaction; we rank the indegree value and betweenness value of the authors, and find that they are not consistent in sequence. At the whole-network level, the structural indices reveal that the stances of the original posts affect the debate networks. At the triad level, the proportions of coded triads reveal that the common forms in debate networks are mutual dyads; the proportions of triadic closures reveal that relations between participants are different in the two camps; and the balanced triads between camps are more than those within camps.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betweenness_centrality.

  2. 2.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degree_(graph_theory).

  3. 3.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clustering_coefficient.

  4. 4.

    http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/SNA/.

References

  1. Somasundaran, S., Wiebe, J.: Recognizing stances in ideological on-line debates. In: NAACL HLT 2010 Workshop on Computational Approaches to Analysis and Generation of Emotion in Text, Los Angeles, pp. 116–124 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Liu, B.: Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Found. Trends Inf. Retrieval 2(1–2), 1–135 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Wang, C., Tang, X.J.: Stance analysis for debates on traditional Chinese medicine at Tianya Forum. In: 5th International Conference on Computational Social Networks, Ho Chi Minh, pp. 321–332 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Agrawal, R., Rajagopalan, S., Srikant, R., et al.: Mining newsgroups using networks arising from social behavior. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 529–535. ACM, Budapest (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Yang, Y., Chen, Q., Liu, W.: The structural evolution of an online discussion network. Phys. A Stat. Mech. Appl. 389(24), 5871–5877 (2010)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Zhao, Y.L., Tang, X.J.: In-depth analysis of online hot discussion about TCM. In: 15th International Symposium on Knowledge and Systems Science, pp. 275–283. JAIST Press, Sapporo (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Watts, D.J., Strogatz, S.H.: Collective dynamics of ‘small-worldʼ networks. Nature 393(6684), 440–442 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Davis, J.A., Leinhardt, S.: The structure of positive interpersonal relations in small groups. Sociological Theories in Progress 2, 218–251 (1972)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Li, Z.P., Tang, X.J.: Triadic and M-cycles balance in social network. In: 15th International Symposium on Knowledge and Systems Science, pp. 275–283. JAIST Press, Sapporo (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Lou, T.C., Tang, J., Hopcroft, J., et al.: Learning to predict reciprocity and triadic closure in social networks. ACM Trans. Knowl. Discov. Data 7(2), 1825–1835 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Granovetter, M.S.: The strength of weak ties. Soc. Sci. Electron. Publishing 78(2), 1360–1380 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Li, Z.P., Tang, X.J.: Group polarization: connecting, influence and balance, a simulation study based on Hopfield modeling. In: 12th Pacific Rim International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Kuching, pp. 710–721 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 61473284 and 71371107).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xijin Tang .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this paper

Cite this paper

Wang, C., Tang, X. (2016). The Online Debate Networks Analysis: A Case Study of Debates at Tianya Forum. In: Chen, J., Nakamori, Y., Yue, W., Tang, X. (eds) Knowledge and Systems Sciences. KSS 2016. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 660. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2857-1_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2857-1_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-10-2856-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-10-2857-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics