Sozialwissenschaften
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (13)
- Article (8)
- Conference Proceeding (4)
- Preprint (1)
- Report (1)
- Review (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (28)
Keywords
- Datenschutz (5)
- Recht (5)
- Forschungsdaten (4)
- Präsidentenwahl (4)
- USA (4)
- Deutsche (3)
- Digital Humanities (3)
- Isolationismus (3)
- Personenbezogene Daten (3)
- Deutschland. Deutscher Bundestag (2)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (16)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (7)
- Postprint (4)
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (11)
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (8)
- (Verlags-)Lektorat (1)
Publisher
This paper presents a compositional annotation scheme to capture the clusivity properties of personal pronouns in context, that is their ability to construct and manage in-groups and out-groups by including/excluding the audience and/or non-speech act participants in reference to groups that also include the speaker. We apply and test our schema on pronoun instances in speeches taken from the German parliament. The speeches cover a time period from 2017-2021 and comprise manual annotations for 3,126 sentences. We achieve high inter-annotator agreement for our new schema, with a Cohen’s κ in the range of 89.7-93.2 and a percentage agreement of > 96%. Our exploratory analysis of in/exclusive pronoun use in the parliamentary setting provides some face validity for our new schema. Finally, we present baseline experiments for automatically predicting clusivity in political debates, with promising results for many referential constellations, yielding an overall 84.9% micro F1 for all pronouns.
Who is we? Disambiguating the referents of first person plural pronouns in parliamentary debates
(2021)
This paper investigates the use of first person plural pronouns as a rhetorical device in political speeches. We present an annotation schema for disambiguating pronoun references and use our schema to create an annotated corpus of debates from the German Bundestag. We then use our corpus to learn to automatically resolve pronoun referents in parliamentary debates. We explore the use of data augmentation with weak supervision to further expand our corpus and report preliminary results.
TV-Formate
(2017)
The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) on personal data protection in the European Union entered into application on 25 May 2018. With its 173 recitals and 99 articles, it may be one of the most ambitious pieces of EU legislation to date. Rather than a guide to GDPR compliance for Digital Humanities researchers, this chapter looks at the use of personal data in DH projects from the data subject’s perspective, and examines to what extent the GDPR kept its promise of enabling the data subject to “take control of his data”. The chapter provides an overview of the right to privacy and the right to data protection, a discussion of the relation between the concept of data control and privacy and data protection law, an introduction to the GDPR, and an explanation of its relevance for scientific research in general and DH in particular. The main section of the chapter analyses two types of data control mechanisms (consent and data subject rights) and their impact on DH research.
Based on conference reports and minutes, archive material and official documents, the article seeks to explore the way in which the promotion of women’s sports and of women in leadership positions became an important part of the sport policy of two major organizations involved in European sport cooperation: the Council of Europe and the European Sport Conference. During first and modest discussions in the 1960s and 1970s it constituted a rather paternalistic project. Also, it was based on the assumption of an essential difference between men and women concerning the need for participation in sport. This only changed since the beginning of the 1980s when women took the course in their own hands, challenged the underlying assumptions and created new networks of cooperation.
Hosting Providers play an essential role in the development of Internet services such as e-Research Infrastructures. In order to promote the development of such services, legislators on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean introduced “safe harbour” provisions to protect Service Providers (a category which includes Hosting Providers) from legal claims (e.g. of copyright infringement). Relevant provisions can be found in § 512 of the United States Copyright Act and in art. 14 of the Directive 2000/31/EC (and its national implementations). The cornerstone of this framework is the passive role of the Hosting Provider through which he has no knowledge of the content that he hosts. With the arrival of Web 2.0, however, the role of Hosting Providers on the Internet changed; this change has been reflected in court decisions that have reached varying conclusions in the last few years. The purpose of this article is to present the existing framework (including recent case law from the US, Germany and France).
Sometimes legal scholars get relevant but baffling questions from laypersons like: “The reference to a work is personal data, so does the GDPR actually require me to anonymise it? Or, as my voice data is personal data, does the GDPR automatically give me access to a speech recognizer using my voice sample? Or, can I say anything about myself without the GDPR requiring the web host to anonymise or remove the post? What can I say about others like politicians? And, what can researchers say about patients in a research report?” Based on these questions, the authors address the interaction of intellectual property and data protection law in the context of data minimisation and attribution rights, access rights, trade secret protection, and freedom of expression.