請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/98973完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 謝吉隆 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.advisor | Ji-Lung Hsieh | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 王昱晴 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author | Yu-Ching Wang | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2025-08-20T16:29:42Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2025-08-21 | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2025-08-20 | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2025 | - |
| dc.date.submitted | 2025-08-14 | - |
| dc.identifier.citation | 一、 中文文獻
王秋婷（2010）。《政治模仿秀之幽默語藝分析：以「全民最大黨」為例》【碩士論文】。世新大學口語傳播學研究所。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/96s5e4 王泰俐（2004）。〈當模仿秀成為「政治嗎啡」---台灣政治模仿秀的「反」涵化效果〉。《廣播與電視》，22，1-23。 王浩羽（2014）。辨識垃圾留言：以YouTube為例【碩士論文】。中央大學資訊工程研究所。https://doi.org/10.6840/cycu201400875 余佳柔（2024年6月15-17日）。〈笑看政治？探討政治諷刺秀的收看動機、政治態度與政治參與的影響 ——以《夜夜秀》為例〉【論文發表】。「2024年台灣傳播年會」，臺北市，臺灣。 周巧絃（2013）。《「政治幽默親近性」與「幽默需求」對政治模仿秀之收視影響研究－以《全民大新聞》為例》【碩士論文】。輔仁大學大眾傳播學研究所。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/yfr9me 林宇玲（2014）。〈網路與公共領域：從審議模式轉向多元公眾模式〉。《新聞學研究》，118，55-85。https://doi.org/10.30386/MCR.201401_（118）.0002 林佑勲（2022）。幽默風格與政治參與之相關研究──以網路使用動機為調節變項。﹝碩士論文。國立臺灣師範大學﹞臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/9xb6dz。 林孟璇（2011年7月4-5日）。〈諷刺喜劇？政治模仿秀之幽默感知研究〉【論文發表】。「2011年中華傳播學會年會」，新竹市，臺灣。 林思平（2008）。〈通如幻想、社會真實與電視文化－《2100 全民亂講》的文化案例〉。《世新大學人文社會學報》，8，95-128。 張嘉倪（2004）。〈跨越真實與擬仿的藩籬——解讀「2100全民亂講」之後現代模仿意涵〉。《傳播與管理研究》，3（2），105-131。https://doi.org/10.6430/cmr.200401.0105 曹衛東等譯（2002）。《公共領域的結構轉型》。聯經。（原書 Habermas，J. [1990]. Strukturwandel der öffentlichkeit. Oxford: Polity Press.） 梁筱筑（2012）。政治及經濟議題之幽默溝通分析:以《全民最大黨》為例。﹝碩士論文。國立成功大學﹞臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/79c822。 程沐真（2018）。社群媒體對選民政治態度及政治參與之影響。﹝碩士論文。國立臺灣大學﹞臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/5zem9s。 黃舜忠（2004）。《電視類型、後設文本與電視經濟：以《2100全民亂講》為例》【碩士論文】。南華大學傳播管理學研究所。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/kzq8v2 臺灣傳播調查資料庫，2024年7月5日。〈「臉書是中年族群才會使用的平台嗎？」－探討台灣民眾的新媒體使用〉。https://crctaiwan.dcat.nycu.edu.tw/epaper/第323期20240705.htm 二、 英文文獻 Baum, M. A. (2003). Soft news and political knowledge: Evidence of absence or absence of evidence? Political Communication, 20(2), 173–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600390211181 Becker, A. B. (2020). Applying mass communication frameworks to study humor’s impact: Advancing the study of political satire. Annals of the International Communication Association, 44(3), 273–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2020.1794925 Becker, A. B., & Waisanen, D. J. (2013). From funny features to entertaining effects: Connecting approaches to communication research on political comedy. Review of Communication, 13(3), 161–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2013.826816 Billig, M. (2005). Laughter and ridicule: Towards a social critique of humour. Sage. Boukes, M. (2019). Agenda-setting with satire: How political satire increased TTIP’s saliency on the public, media, and political agenda. Political Communication, 36(3), 426–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2018.1498816 Boulianne, S. (2015). Social media use and participation: A meta-analysis of current research. Information, Communication & Society, 18(5), 524–538. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1008542 Boyd, M. S. (2014). (New) participatory framework on YouTube? Commenter interaction in US political speeches. Journal of Pragmatics, 72, 46–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.03.002 Bruns, A. (2023). From “the” public sphere to a network of publics: Towards an empirically founded model of contemporary public communication spaces. Communication Theory, 33(2–3), 70–81. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtad007 Bruns, A., & Moon, B. (2019). One day in the life of a national Twittersphere. Nordicom Review, 40(s1), 11–30. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2019-0011 Buchstein, H. (1997). Bytes that bite: The internet and deliberative democracy. Constellations, 4(2), 248–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.00052 Burgers, C., & Brugman, B. C. (2022). How Satirical News Impacts Affective Responses, Learning, and Persuasion: A Three-Level Random-Effects Meta-Analysis. Communication Research, 49(7), 966-993. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502211032100 Cann, T. J. B., Dennes, B., Coan, T., O’Neill, S., & Williams, H. T. P. (2025). Using semantic similarity to measure the echo of strategic communications. EPJ Data Science, 14(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjds/s13688-025-00538-w Carpini, M. X. D., Cook, F. L., & Jacobs, L. R. (2004). Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 315–344. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.121003.091630 Chae, Y., & Davidson, T. (2025). Large Language Models for Text Classification: From Zero-Shot Learning to Instruction-Tuning. Sociological Methods & Research, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/00491241251325243 Chambers, S. (2003). DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRATIC THEORY. Annual Review of Political Science, 6(Volume 6, 2003), 307-326. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.6.121901.085538 Chiu, K.-L., Collins, A., & Alexander, R. (2021). Detecting hate speech with GPT-3. arXiv:2103.12407. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021arXiv210312407C Conover, P. J., Searing, D. D., & Crewe, I. M. (2002). The deliberative potential of political discussion. British Journal of Political Science, 32(1), 21–62. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123402000029 Dahlberg, L. (2004). The Habermasian public sphere: A specification of the idealized conditions of democratic communication. Studies in social and political thought, 10(10), 2-18. Dahlgren, P. (2005). The Internet, Public Spheres, and Political Communication: Dispersion and Deliberation. Political Communication, 22(2), 147–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600590933160 Davis, J. L., Love, T. P., & Killen, G. (2018). Seriously funny: The political work of humor on social media. New Media & Society, 20(10), 3898-3916. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818762602 Dean, J. (2003). Why the Net is not a Public Sphere. Constellations: An International Journal Of Critical & Democratic Theory, 10(1). Domínguez-Diaz, A., Goyanes, M., & de-Marcos, L. (2025). Automating content analysis of scientific abstracts using ChatGPT: A methodological protocol and use case. MethodsX, 15, Article 103431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2025.103431 Dynel, M. (2014). Participation framework underlying YouTube interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 73, 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.04.001 Dynel, M., & Poppi, F. I. M. (2021). Caveat emptor: Boycott through digital humour on the wave of the 2019 Hong Kong protests. Information, Communication & Society, 24(15), 2323–2341. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1757134 Eichin, F., Schuster, C. M., Groh, G., & Hedderich, M. A. (2024). Semantic component analysis: Discovering patterns in short texts beyond topics [Preprint]. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.21054 Eveland, W. P. (2004). The effect of political discussion in producing informed citizens: The roles of information, motivation, and elaboration. Political Communication, 21(2), 177–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600490443877 Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Social Text, 25/26, 56–80. https://doi.org/10.2307/466240 Friess, D., & Eilders, C. (2015). A systematic review of online deliberation research. Policy & Internet, 7(3), 319–339. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.95 Fuchs, C. (2012). The political economy of privacy on Facebook. Television & New Media, 13(2), 139–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476411415699 Gal, N. (2019). Ironic humor on social media as participatory boundary work. New Media & Society, 21(3), 729–749. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818805719 Gerhards, J., & Schäfer, M. S. (2010). Is the internet a better public sphere? Comparing old and new media in the USA and Germany. New Media & Society, 12(1), 143–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809341444 Grootendorst, M. (2020). KeyBERT: Minimal keyword extraction with BERT (Version 0.3.0) [Computer software]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4461265 Habermas, J. (1985). The theory of communicative action: Volume 1: Reason and the rationalization of society (Vol. 1). Beacon press. Habermas, J. (2006). Political communication in media society: Does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research. Communication Theory, 16(4), 411–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00280.x Habermas, J., Lennox, S., & Lennox, F. (1974). The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article (1964). New German Critique, 3, 49–55. https://doi.org/10.2307/487737 Halpern, D., & Gibbs, J. (2013). Social media as a catalyst for online deliberation? Exploring the affordances of Facebook and YouTube for political expression. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 1159–1168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.008 Hess, A. (2009). Resistance up in smoke: Analyzing the limitations of deliberation on YouTube. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 26(5), 411–434. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295030903325347 Hoffman, L. H., & Young, D. G. (2011). Satire, punch lines, and the nightly news: Untangling media effects on political participation. Communication Research Reports, 28(2), 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2011.565278 Holbert, R. L. (2005). A typology for the study of entertainment television and politics. American Behavioral Scientist, 49(3), 436–453. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764205279419 Hyttinen, A. (2024). Possibilities and limits of political humour in a hybrid regime: A visual ethnographic study of the Hungarian Two-Tailed Dog Party. The European Journal of Humour Research, 12(1), 171–193. https://doi.org/10.7592/EJHR.2024.12.1.849 Jäger, A. (2022). The illusion of the end. New Perspectives, 30(4), 410-414. https://doi.org/10.1177/2336825x221132933 Jeong, M. S., Long, J. A., & Lavis, S. M. (2023). The viral water cooler: Talking about political satire promotes further political discussion. Mass Communication and Society, 26(6), 938–962. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2022.2138766 Kaiser, J., & Rauchfleisch, A. (2019). Integrating Concepts of Counterpublics into Generalised Public Sphere Frameworks: Contemporary Transformations in Radical Forms. Javnost - The Public, 26(3), 241–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2018.1558676 Kim, J., & Kim, E. J. (2008). Theorizing Dialogic Deliberation: Everyday Political Talk as Communicative Action and Dialogue. Communication Theory, 18(1), 51-70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00313.x Kim, Y. M., & Vishak, J. (2008). Just laugh! You don’t need to remember: The effects of entertainment media on political information acquisition and information processing in political judgment. Journal of Communication, 58(2), 338–360. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00388.x Koivukoski, J. (2022). Political Humor in the Hybrid Media Environment: Studies on Journalistic Satire and Amusing Advocacy Kolhatkar, V., Wu, H., Cavasso, L., Francis, E., Shukla, K., & Taboada, M. (2020). The SFU Opinion and Comments Corpus: A corpus for the analysis of online news comments. Corpus Pragmatics, 4(2), 155–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-019-00065-w Kuipers, G. (2011). The politics of humour in the public sphere: Cartoons, power and modernity in the first transnational humour scandal. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 14(1), 63-80. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367549410370072 Kuipers, G., & Zijp, D. (2024). Humour and the public sphere. The European Journal of Humour Research, 12(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.7592/EJHR.2024.12.1.937 Landreville, K. D., Holbert, R. L., & LaMarre, H. L. (2010). The influence of late-night TV comedy viewing on political talk: A moderated-mediation model. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 15(4), 482–498. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161210371506 Lee, H., & Jang, S. M. (2017). Talking about what provokes us: Political satire, emotions, and interpersonal talk. American Politics Research, 45(1), 128–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X16657805 Li, Y., Martinez, O., Chen, X., Li, Y., & Hopcroft, J. E. (2016, April). In a world that counts: Clustering and detecting fake social engagement at scale. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW ’16) (pp. 111–120). International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee. https://doi.org/10.1145/2872427.2882972 Loader, B. D., Vromen, A., & Xenos, M. A. (2014). The networked young citizen: Social media, political participation and civic engagement. Information, Communication & Society, 17(2), 143–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2013.871571 Lunt, P., & Stenner, P. (2005). The Jerry Springer Show as an emotional public sphere. Media, Culture & Society, 27(1), 59-81. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443705049058 Naab, T. K., Ruess, H.-S., & Küchler, C. (2025). The influence of the deliberative quality of user comments on the number and quality of their reply comments. New Media & Society, 27(1), 62–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231172168 Nieuwenhuis, I., & Zijp, D. (2022). The politics and aesthetics of humour in an age of comic controversy. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 25(2), 341-354. https://doi.org/10.1177/13675494221084118 O’Connor, A. (2017). The Effects of Satire: Exploring Its Impact on Political Candidate Evaluation. In J. Milner Davis Papacharissi, Z. (2002). The virtual sphere: The internet as a public sphere. New Media & Society, 4(1), 9–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614440222226244 Rauchfleisch, A., & Kaiser, J. (2020). The German far-right on YouTube: An analysis of user overlap and user comments. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 64(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2020.1799690 Rauchfleisch, A., & Kovic, M. (2016). The Internet and Generalized Functions of the Public Sphere: Transformative Potentials From a Comparative Perspective. Social Media + Society, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305116646393 Rauchfleisch, A., & Schäfer, M. S. (2015). Multiple public spheres of Weibo: A typology of forms and potentials of online public spheres in China. Information, Communication & Society, 18(2), 139–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2014.940364 Reimers, N., & Gurevych, I. (2019). Sentence-BERT: Sentence embeddings using siamese BERT-networks [Preprint]. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.10084 Romano, A. (2021, October 23). What Dave Chappelle gets wrong about trans people and comedy. Vox. https://www.vox.com/culture/22738500/dave-chappelle-the-closer-daphne-dorman-trans-controversy-comedy Ross, A. S., & Rivers, D. J. (2017). Digital cultures of political participation: Internet memes and the discursive delegitimization of the 2016 U.S presidential candidates. Discourse, Context & Media, 16, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2017.01.001 Schudson, M. (1997). Why conversation is not the soul of democracy. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 14(4), 297-309. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295039709367020 Schwarzenegger, C., & Wagner, A. (2018). Can it be hate if it is fun? Discursive ensembles of hatred and laughter in extreme right satire on Facebook. Studies in Communication and Media, 7, 473–498. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2018-4-473 Seeliger, M., & Sevignani, S. (2022). A New Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere? An Introduction. Theory, Culture & Society, 39(4), 3-16. https://doi.org/10.1177/02632764221109439 Shah, D. V., Cho, J., Eveland, W. P., & Kwak, N. (2005). Information and expression in a digital age: Modeling internet effects on civic participation. Communication Research, 32(5), 531–565. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650205279209 Shifman, L. (2013). Memes in a digital world: Reconciling with a conceptual troublemaker. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(3), 362–377. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12013 Shirky, C. (2011). The political power of social media: Technology, the public sphere, and political change. Foreign Affairs, 90(1), 28–41. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25800379 Singh, R., Choudhary, N., & Shrivastava, M. (2018). Automatic normalization of word variations in code-mixed social media text [Preprint]. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1804.00804 Statista. (2024, March). Most popular social networks worldwide as of January 2024, ranked by number of monthly active users. https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-of-users/ Stromer-Galley, J. (2007). Measuring deliberation's content: A coding scheme. Journal of Public Deliberation, 3. https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.50 Stromer-Galley, J., & Martinson, A. (2005). Conceptualizing and Measuring Coherence in Online Chat. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, New York, NY. Tanskanen, S.-K. (2021). Fragmented but coherent: Lexical cohesion on a YouTube channel. Discourse, Context & Media, 44, 100548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2021.100548 Tesnohlidkova, O. (2021). Humor and satire in politics: Introducing cultural sociology to the field. Sociology Compass, 15(1), e12842. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12842 Thelwall, M. (2018). Social media analytics for YouTube comments: Potential and limitations. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 21(3), 303–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2017.1381821 Trénel, M. (2004). Measuring the quality of online deliberation. Coding scheme 2.2. Unpublished manuscript. Social Science Research Center Berlin. http://www.wz-berlin.de/~trenel/tools/qod_2_0.pdf Tsakona, V. (2020). Talking about humor, racism, and anti-racism in class: A critical literacy proposal. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Brasov, 12(61), 111–141. https://doi.org/10.31926/but.pcs.2019.61.12.14 Wojtkowski, D. D. (2018). Laughing to understand: An investigation of political satire affinity. UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research (2018). https://www.uwlax.edu/globalassets/offices-services/urc/jur- online/pdf/2018/wojtkowksi.dylan.cst.pdf Wong, K., Paritosh, P., & Aroyo, L. (2021). Cross-replication reliability—An empirical approach to interpreting inter-rater reliability. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.07393. Young, D. G. (2013). Laughter, learning, or enlightenment? Viewing and avoidance motivations behind The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57(2), 153–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2013.787080 | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/98973 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 本研究以政治脫口秀《賀瓏夜夜秀》為研究對象，探討其YouTube留言區政治對話的審議品質。研究蒐集2024年總統大選期間三個政治性單元——「欸！」、新聞亂報、來賓訪談的觀眾留言，依據審議民主理論建構「互動性」與「建設性」兩大核心意涵，並且設計形式互動、實質互動、垃圾留言、結構性主題相關性與互動性主題相關性等五項可量化操作的評估指標，結合傳統機器學習與大語言模型，提出一套新的審議性留言分析框架。
研究結果發現，68% 的留言屬於「有意義的政治對話」，但僅有 28% 同時具備互動性與建設性，另有 40% 為「單向政治留言」。不過值得注意的是，在這些缺乏互動性的政治留言中，其「互動性結構相關性」反而高於具互動性的留言，亦即這些單向留言在內容上與留言區的整體輿論形成呼應。此一結果反映出，當代公共領域的意涵已轉向將網路視為開放性的意見交流場域，人們可以在平台上自由表達個人政治立場與觀點。儘管此類留言未必能引發回應、形成討論串，仍具有推進有意義政治對話的潛力。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | This study examines the deliberative quality of political discussion in the YouTube comment section of “The Night Night Show with Hello” during Taiwan’s 2024 presidential election. Grounded in deliberative theory, this study identify reciprocity and constructiveness as core dimensions, operationalized into five measurable indicators. The study employs a mixed computational approach that combines traditional machine learning with large language models to develop a scalable framework for assessing the quality of online political discussion.
Results indicate that 68% of comments qualify as meaningful political discussion, yet only 28% display both reciprocity and constructiveness. A further 40% are one-way political comments which, despite lacking direct interaction, exhibit strong alignment with overall conversational trends. These findings suggest that contemporary online public spheres increasingly operate as a public communication network, where even non-interactive contributions can play a role in advancing meaningful dialogue. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Submitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2025-08-20T16:29:42Z No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2025-08-20T16:29:42Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員會審定書 I
誌謝 II 中文摘要 III 英文摘要 IV 目次 V 圖次 VII 表次 VIII 壹、 緒論 1 第一節、 研究動機 1 第二節、 研究目的 3 貳、 文獻探討 6 第一節、 網路審議：公共領域概念之轉型 6 一、 審議民主與傳統公共領域 6 二、 網路公共領域的意義重構 8 第二節、 幽默公共領域 11 一、 政治脫口秀的特性與影響 11 二、 公共領域的幽默轉向：非理性公共領域 14 第三節、 YOUTUBE留言互動與網路審議 17 一、 YouTube的平台功能與用戶互動 17 二、 留言審議品質評估 19 第四節、 小結與研究問題 21 參、 研究方法 25 第一節、 分析資料與前處理 25 一、 研究對象 25 二、 資料前處理 25 第二節、 操作型定義 26 第三節、 資料分析方法 30 一、 留言互動性分析方法 30 二、 留言建設性分析 30 三、 審議性留言分析 41 肆、 資料分析結果 42 第一節、 留言互動性分析結果 42 一、 留言形式互動與實質互動 42 第二節、 留言建設性分析結果 42 一、 垃圾留言分析結果 43 二、 結構性主題相關性分析結果 44 三、 互動性主題相關性分析結果 47 四、 建設性留言綜合評估結果 51 第三節、 審議性留言分析結果 52 伍、 結論 55 第一節、 研究發現 55 第二節、 研究貢獻 59 第三節、 限制與建議 59 參考文獻 61 一、 中文文獻 61 二、 英文文獻 62 | - |
| dc.language.iso | zh_TW | - |
| dc.subject | 政治對話 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 大語言模型 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | YouTube | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 政治脫口秀 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 審議民主 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 留言分析 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | Deliberative Democracy | en |
| dc.subject | YouTube | en |
| dc.subject | LLM Content Analysis | en |
| dc.subject | Political Talk Show | en |
| dc.subject | Political Discussion | en |
| dc.title | 笑談政治？以《夜夜秀》為例分析YouTube留言區的審議互動 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Roast or Discussion? A Case Study of Deliberative Interaction in YouTube Political Talk Show Comments | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | - |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 113-2 | - |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | - |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 邱銘心;鄧志松 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | Ming-Hsin Chiu;Chih-Sung Teng | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | YouTube,政治對話,審議民主,政治脫口秀,留言分析,大語言模型, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | YouTube,Deliberative Democracy,Political Discussion,Political Talk Show,LLM Content Analysis, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 68 | - |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202504364 | - |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(限校園內公開) | - |
| dc.date.accepted | 2025-08-15 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 社會科學院 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 新聞研究所 | - |
| dc.date.embargo-lift | 2025-08-21 | - |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 新聞研究所 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-113-2.pdf 授權僅限NTU校內IP使用（校園外請利用VPN校外連線服務） | 2.06 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件，除了特別指名其著作權條款之外，均受到著作權保護，並且保留所有的權利。