Harnessing linked knowledge sources for topic classification in social media

Topic classification (TC) of short text messages offers an effective and fast way to reveal events happening around the world ranging from those related to Disaster (e.g. Sandy hurricane) to those related to Violence (e.g. Egypt revolution). Previous approaches to TC have mostly focused on exploiting individual knowledge sources (KS) (e.g. DBpedia or Freebase) without considering the graph structures that surround concepts present in KSs when detecting the topics of Tweets. In this paper we introduce a novel approach for harnessing such graph structures from multiple linked KSs, by: (i) building a conceptual representation of the KSs, (ii) leveraging contextual information about concepts by exploiting semantic concept graphs, and (iii) providing a principled way for the combination of KSs. Experiments evaluating our TC classifier in the context of Violence detection (VD) and Emergency Responses (ER) show promising results that significantly outperform various baseline models including an approach using a single KS without linked data and an approach using only Tweets. Copyright 2013 ACM.

Representation and misrepresentation of scientific evidence in contemporary tobacco regulation:a review of tobacco industry submissions to the UK Government consultation on standardised packaging

BACKGROUND: Standardised packaging (SP) of tobacco products is an innovative tobacco control measure opposed by transnational tobacco companies (TTCs) whose responses to the UK government's public consultation on SP argued that evidence was inadequate to support implementing the measure. The government's initial decision, announced 11 months after the consultation closed, was to wait for 'more evidence', but four months later a second 'independent review' was launched. In view of the centrality of evidence to debates over SP and TTCs' history of denying harms and manufacturing uncertainty about scientific evidence, we analysed their submissions to examine how they used evidence to oppose SP. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We purposively selected and analysed two TTC submissions using a verification-oriented cross-documentary method to ascertain how published studies were used and interpretive analysis with a constructivist grounded theory approach to examine the conceptual significance of TTC critiques. The companies' overall argument was that the SP evidence base was seriously flawed and did not warrant the introduction of SP. However, this argument was underpinned by three complementary techniques that misrepresented the evidence base. First, published studies were repeatedly misquoted, distorting the main messages. Second, 'mimicked scientific critique' was used to undermine evidence; this form of critique insisted on methodological perfection, rejected methodological pluralism, adopted a litigation (not scientific) model, and was not rigorous. Third, TTCs engaged in 'evidential landscaping', promoting a parallel evidence base to deflect attention from SP and excluding company-held evidence relevant to SP. The study's sample was limited to sub-sections of two out of four submissions, but leaked industry documents suggest at least one other company used a similar approach. CONCLUSIONS: The TTCs' claim that SP will not lead to public health benefits is largely without foundation. The tools of Better Regulation, particularly stakeholder consultation, provide an opportunity for highly resourced corporations to slow, weaken, or prevent public health policies.