← 研踪 PaperTrailarXiv:2610.35358 · v1
Agreement Between Reconstructed and Native GDELT GKG Records: A Field-Level Baseline
首次提交 2026-10-26 20:48
版本更新 2026-10-26 20:48
雷达观测 2026-10-29 00:36
摘要
The Global Knowledge Graph (GKG) of the Global Database of Events, Language, and Tone (GDELT) characterizes news articles using named entities, topics, quantitative and temporal features, quotations, tone, and dictionary-based content measures. Its codebook defines the record format, but the software that produces the records is not public, so researchers cannot generate compatible records for articles they collect themselves. We built an open-source reconstruction, gdelt-regkg, and measured how closely it agrees with GDELT's archived (native) records for 193,550 English articles from 8,729 publishers (2020-2025) and 2,500 articles in five other languages. Agreement depends strongly on the field. English tone, the percentage of positive minus negative words, has a mean absolute error (MAE) of 1.79 points and a concordance correlation coefficient of 0.75. Identity agreement (F1) is 0.65 for persons, 0.42 for organizations, and 0.65 for locations. It is lower for date components (0.42), complete counts with their objects and locations (0.07), and quotations (0.07), while GCAM category presence reaches micro F1 0.84 within the implemented dictionaries. In subsets where retrieved and native titles and lengths match, tone error falls to 1.47 and organization F1 rises to 0.48, yet most disagreement remains. A larger gazetteer raises coverage of native places from 89.5% to 97.1% with little change in location F1. Tone computed on English translations of non-English articles is less accurate (MAE 2.10-2.64) than for English articles. The results are conditional on article pages that could still be retrieved, and the correspondence subsets do not isolate the effect of input differences. Reconstructed records should therefore be assessed field by field and not treated as completely interchangeable with native ones.
作者备注：15 pages, 10 tables, 5 figures
观测到的版本
相邻记录可能跳过中间版本；首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。
v1 · 2026-10-26 20:48 · 最新观测版本
Agreement Between Reconstructed and Native GDELT GKG Records: A Field-Level Baseline
The Global Knowledge Graph (GKG) of the Global Database of Events, Language, and Tone (GDELT) characterizes news articles using named entities, topics, quantitative and temporal features, quotations, tone, and dictionary-based content measures. Its codebook defines the record format, but the software that produces the records is not public, so researchers cannot generate compatible records for articles they collect themselves. We built an open-source reconstruction, gdelt-regkg, and measured how closely it agrees with GDELT's archived (native) records for 193,550 English articles from 8,729 publishers (2020-2025) and 2,500 articles in five other languages. Agreement depends strongly on the field. English tone, the percentage of positive minus negative words, has a mean absolute error (MAE) of 1.79 points and a concordance correlation coefficient of 0.75. Identity agreement (F1) is 0.65 for persons, 0.42 for organizations, and 0.65 for locations. It is lower for date components (0.42), complete counts with their objects and locations (0.07), and quotations (0.07), while GCAM category presence reaches micro F1 0.84 within the implemented dictionaries. In subsets where retrieved and native titles and lengths match, tone error falls to 1.47 and organization F1 rises to 0.48, yet most disagreement remains. A larger gazetteer raises coverage of native places from 89.5% to 97.1% with little change in location F1. Tone computed on English translations of non-English articles is less accurate (MAE 2.10-2.64) than for English articles. The results are conditional on article pages that could still be retrieved, and the correspondence subsets do not isolate the effect of input differences. Reconstructed records should therefore be assessed field by field and not treated as completely interchangeable with native ones.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗