search

naf51 / Federalist_Papers

This project is meant to do an analysis of the Federalist Papers to see whether or not its content is more egalitarian (for the people and equality) or elitist (for those who wrote it).
2 stars 0 forks source link

Project Update: 10/27 #16

Open naf51 opened 3 years ago

naf51 commented 3 years ago

This week we went over our previous week's markup and the changes we made to our first week's markup as well. In general, for our first batch of markup, we had to add metadata elements and associate them with the schema. For this week, we added new elements such as and , and have, in total, a lucky number of 13 elements that we've used to mark up these papers! We discussed patterns we saw when doing markup, for instance, I (Nate) saw many elitist statements relating to in paper No. 84. Since our task for this week was to complete our markup. I (Nate) am tasked with going through each paper and making sure that there are no inconsistencies with the markup. This is because any inconsistencies might make our analysis more diffucult and not as accurate as we want it to be.

For next week, Shane is going to download mallet and be introduced to topic modeling. We want this to be a big portion of our analysis/features on the project. We are thinking of having the Federalist Papers we used and have a topic modeling tool that allows you to select topics that involve aspects of government (like the judiciary, executive, legislature, freedom/liberties, etc). Patrick is going to look into improving our schema and making it more accurate using schematron. Also, he is going to begin developing the design of the project page by potentially uploading html to obdurodon. Nate will be going through all the markup to look for inconsistencies and contact Dr. Elisa Beshero-Bondar (who gave the guest lecture on network analysis), to see if network analysis is applicable to the project.

In addition, there are minor tweaks we need to make with the markup which we believe are pretty normal, like adding elements or removing quotation marks when inserting a . Also, we are doing a batch validation on our 24 papers we have marked up to make the process go by faster.

EmilyMartin42 commented 3 years ago

You guys seem like you are nicely on track! I think it is a good idea to have one person go through all the papers and check for inconsistencies, since the markup can be subjective. Have you found it hard to categorize things, or is it pretty clear if a statement is, say, elitist etc? Have you found yourselves disagreeing about any of the tagging? I ask because I have been finding it occasionally challenging in my own markup.

victoriacosta commented 3 years ago

I think its a really smart strategy to have some time dedicated to reviewing the markup for inconsistencies. Do you have some indication yet of which elements/attributes you'll need to hone in on? I'm hopeful that my team will be able to implement a similar tactic since our markup has some complexity to it that can lend itself to closer examination before we begin to analyze it.