The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Democratic Compromise: A Latent Variable Analysis of Ten Measures of Regime Type
Open accessAbstract
Using a Bayesian latent variable approach, we synthesize a new measure of democracy, the Unified Democracy Scores (UDS), from 10 extant scales. Our measure eschews the difficult—and often arbitrary—decision to use one existing democracy scale over another in favor of a cumulative approach that allows us to simultaneously leverage the measurement efforts of numerous scholars. The result of this cumulative approach is a measure of democracy that, for every country-year, is at least as reliable as the most reliable component measure and is accompanied by quantitative estimates of uncertainty in the level of democracy. Moreover, for those who wish to continue using previously existing scales or to evaluate research performed using those scales, we extract information from the new measure to perform heretofore impossible direct comparisons between component scales. Specifically, we estimate the relative reliability of the constituent indicators, compare the specific ordinal levels of each of the existing measures in relationship to one another and assess overall levels of disagreement across raters. We make the UDS and associated parameter estimates freely available online and provide a detailed tutorial that demonstrates how to best use the UDS in applied work.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., & Rubin, D. B. (2003) · doi:10.1201/9780429258480 · Cited by 27,276
Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well-Being in the World, 1950–1990
Przeworski, A., Alvarez, M. E., Cheibub, J. A., & Limongi, F. (2000) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511804946 · Cited by 2,845
Cited by
A Complete Data Set of Political Regimes, 1800–2007
Boix, C., Miller, M., & Rosato, S. (2013) · Comparative Political Studies · doi:10.1177/0010414012463905 · Cited by 1,072
Respect for Human Rights has Improved Over Time: Modeling the Changing Standard of Accountability
FARISS, C. J. (2014) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055414000070 · Cited by 706
Fincher, C. L., & Thornhill, R. (2012) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x11000021 · Cited by 530
Gerring, J. (2012) · British Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1017/s0007123412000130 · Cited by 435
Leviathan’s Latent Dimensions: Measuring State Capacity for Comparative Political Research
Hanson, J. K., & Sigman, R. (2021) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1086/715066 · Cited by 414
Metadata
- Authors
- Pemstein, D., Meserve, S. A., & Melton, J.
- Venue
- Political Analysis
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2010
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 426-449
- ISSN
- 1047-1987 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-4989
- OpenAlex
- W2132222729
- Cited by
- 464
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 151.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Democratic Compromise: A Latent Variable Analysis of Ten Measures of Regime Type. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/pan/mpq020
- The paper
- Pemstein, D., Meserve, S. A., & Melton, J. (2010). Democratic Compromise: A Latent Variable Analysis of Ten Measures of Regime Type. Political Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpq020
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.