Resonance Test Series Papers Download ##HOT## Pdf

Resonance analysis is an evolving text mining method for estimating how much affinity exists in a broader population for a specific group. The method involves a multistage procedure for scoring words according to how distinctive they are of authors in the specific group, and then scoring a broader population according to whether they make similar distinctive choices. While likely applicable to many different forms of written content, resonance analysis was developed for short-form social media posts and has been tested primarily on Twitter and Twitter-like data.

In this working paper, we describe resonance analysis and provide detailed guidance for using it effectively. We then conduct an empirical test of real-world Twitter data to demonstrate and validate the method using tweets from Republican Party members, Democratic Party members, and members of the news media. The results show that the method is able to distinguish Republicans' tweets from Democrats' tweets with 92-percent accuracy. We then demonstrate and validate the method using simulated artificial language to create controlled experimental conditions. The method is very accurate when minimum data requirements have been met. In an operational field test, resonance analysis generated results that mirror real-world conditions and achieved statistically significant agreement with double-blind human analyst judgments of the same users. Finally, we provide examples of resonance analysis usage with social media data and identify opportunities for future research.

Resonance Test Series Papers Download Pdf

Download Zip 🔥 https://shoxet.com/2y7YTd 🔥

This report is part of the RAND Corporation Working paper series. RAND working papers are intended to share researchers' latest findings and to solicit informal peer review. They have been approved for circulation by RAND but may not have been formally edited or peer reviewed.

The hypothesis of formative causation predicts that as animals of a given species learn a new pattern of behaviour, other similar animals will subsequently tend to learn the same thing more readily all over the world, a a result of a process called morphic resonance. The more that learn it, the easier it should become for others. This possibility was tested with day-old chicks using a simple learned response, a conditioned aversion. The test took place in the laboratory of Steven Rose, a sceptic, following a standard procedure used routinely in his laboratory, and was carried out blind by a summer student who knew nothing of the purpose of the experiment nor of morphic resonance. The chicks were exposed either to a test stimulus, a small yellow light-emitting diode (LED), or a control stimulus, a chrome bead. Half an hour after pecking the stimulus, the control chicks received an injection of saline solution, and the test chicks an injection of lithium chloride, which made them mildly sick. They were then tested three hours later, each chick being exposed sequentially to the control and the test stimulus, when most test birds were averse to pecking the yellow LED, but not averse to pecking the control bead. The response of the chicks was measured by recording the latency, the time delay in seconds before they first pecked the stimulus. The same experimental procedure was repeated for 37 days. If morphic resonance were occurring, successive batches of chicks should have shown an increasing aversion to the yellow LED, even in the initial training procedure, by morphic resonance from their averse predecessors. The controls should have shown no such increasing aversion. I think the results are consistent with such an effect, which shows up with a high degree of statistical significance (p < 0.01) when the aversion to the yellow bead is measured relative to the control. Rose disagrees with this interpretation.

Rose's predictions about the outcome of this experiment were refuted by the empirical data. His aggressive tone and extravagant rhetoric conceal this simple fact. I will not attempt to answer his polemic, ranging from Nietzsche to ley-lines, but simply start by looking again at his predictions about the chicks: "No secular trends apparent; latencies to peck the illuminated bead after ten weeks are no different from those on week I, and the differences between latencies for illuminated and chrome beads, if they occur, are also unchanged". In fact secular trends were very apparent, latencies to peck the illuminated bead after ten weeks were very different from those on week I, and the differences between latencies for illuminated and chrome beads were not unchanged. Rose and I discussed various interpretations of the data over a period of eighteen months. At the outset, he seemed certain that the hypothesis of formative causation would be disconfirmed. He had already publicly denounced it in the strongest terms. He appeared to have no doubt that when tested in his own laboratory, under his own supervision, in my absence, by an experimenter working blind, the data would reveal no trace whatever of morphic resonance. But it soon became clear that there had been an effect of the kind predicted by the hypothesis of formative causation. (I discuss below Rose's alternative interpretation of this effect in terms of "floors" and "ceilings"). After lengthy delays, Rose withdrew from our agreement to write a joint paper, and no longer wanted to publish the results. 006ab0faaa