Benchmarks for text analysis: A response to Budge and Pennings
Budge and Pennings (2007) criticize the “Wordscores” method for computerized content analysis on essentially two grounds. The first is that the best test of Wordscores accuracy is whether it can “reproduce the rich time series produced by the MRG/CMP covering a 50 year period” (Budge and Pennings, 2...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | text |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
2007
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/soss_research/3977 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/soss_research/article/5235/viewcontent/ElStud2006_ResponseBP_pv.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Singapore Management University |
| Language: | English |
| id |
sg-smu-ink.soss_research-5235 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
dspace |
| spelling |
sg-smu-ink.soss_research-52352024-09-02T06:24:14Z Benchmarks for text analysis: A response to Budge and Pennings BENOIT, Kenneth LAVER, Michael Budge and Pennings (2007) criticize the “Wordscores” method for computerized content analysis on essentially two grounds. The first is that the best test of Wordscores accuracy is whether it can “reproduce the rich time series produced by the MRG/CMP covering a 50 year period” (Budge and Pennings, 2007: 5), which Budge and Pennings claim it does not do. The second is that Wordscores time series estimates, as implemented by Budge and Pennings, yield very little variation around mean scores for the entire time series. In this brief response we make three simple points. 2007-03-01T08:00:00Z text application/pdf https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/soss_research/3977 info:doi/10.1016/j.electstud.2006.04.001 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/soss_research/article/5235/viewcontent/ElStud2006_ResponseBP_pv.pdf http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Research Collection School of Social Sciences eng Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University Models and Methods Political Science |
| institution |
Singapore Management University |
| building |
SMU Libraries |
| continent |
Asia |
| country |
Singapore Singapore |
| content_provider |
SMU Libraries |
| collection |
InK@SMU |
| language |
English |
| topic |
Models and Methods Political Science |
| spellingShingle |
Models and Methods Political Science BENOIT, Kenneth LAVER, Michael Benchmarks for text analysis: A response to Budge and Pennings |
| description |
Budge and Pennings (2007) criticize the “Wordscores” method for computerized content analysis on essentially two grounds. The first is that the best test of Wordscores accuracy is whether it can “reproduce the rich time series produced by the MRG/CMP covering a 50 year period” (Budge and Pennings, 2007: 5), which Budge and Pennings claim it does not do. The second is that Wordscores time series estimates, as implemented by Budge and Pennings, yield very little variation around mean scores for the entire time series. In this brief response we make three simple points. |
| format |
text |
| author |
BENOIT, Kenneth LAVER, Michael |
| author_facet |
BENOIT, Kenneth LAVER, Michael |
| author_sort |
BENOIT, Kenneth |
| title |
Benchmarks for text analysis: A response to Budge and Pennings |
| title_short |
Benchmarks for text analysis: A response to Budge and Pennings |
| title_full |
Benchmarks for text analysis: A response to Budge and Pennings |
| title_fullStr |
Benchmarks for text analysis: A response to Budge and Pennings |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Benchmarks for text analysis: A response to Budge and Pennings |
| title_sort |
benchmarks for text analysis: a response to budge and pennings |
| publisher |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University |
| publishDate |
2007 |
| url |
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/soss_research/3977 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/soss_research/article/5235/viewcontent/ElStud2006_ResponseBP_pv.pdf |
| _version_ |
1814047825586028544 |