The DOI matches its Crossref record; 71 of the 71 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How to Analyze Political Attention with Minimal Assumptions and Costs
Open accessAbstract
Previous methods of analyzing the substance of political attention have had to make several restrictive assumptions or been prohibitively costly when applied to large‐scale political texts. Here, we describe a topic model for legislative speech, a statistical learning model that uses word choices to infer topical categories covered in a set of speeches and to identify the topic of specific speeches. Our method estimates, rather than assumes, the substance of topics, the keywords that identify topics, and the hierarchical nesting of topics. We use the topic model to examine the agenda in the U.S. Senate from 1997 to 2004. Using a new database of over 118,000 speeches (70,000,000 words) from the Congressional Record, our model reveals speech topic categories that are both distinctive and meaningfully interrelated and a richer view of democratic agenda dynamics than had previously been possible.
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Political scientists have extended topic models so that the parameters correspond to politically relevant quantities of interest.”
From Text as Data: The Promise and Pitfalls of Automatic Content Analysis Methods for Political Texts (2013) · cites this paper as Quinn et al. 2010
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Quinn et al. (2010) argue that if topics are valid, then external events should explain sudden increases in attention to a topic”
From Text as Data: The Promise and Pitfalls of Automatic Content Analysis Methods for Political Texts (2013) · cites this paper as Quinn et al. 2010
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“As Quinn et al. (2010) observe, unsupervised methods shift the user burden from determining categories before analysis to validating model output afterward.”
From Text as Data: The Promise and Pitfalls of Automatic Content Analysis Methods for Political Texts (2013) · cites this paper as Quinn et al. 2010
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The first topic model in political science is the dynamic multitopic model (Quinn et al. 2010), used to model the daily attention to topics in Senate floor speeches”
From Text as Data: The Promise and Pitfalls of Automatic Content Analysis Methods for Political Texts (2013) · cites this paper as Quinn et al. 2010
In the citing paper
“In contrast to computer scientists, who focus primarily on out-ofsample prediction, quantitative social scientists typically test their assumptions by assessing construct reliability and construct validity.”
From Measurement and Fairness (2021) · cites this paper as [49]
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
(2003) · Journal of Machine Learning Research · doi:10.5555/944919.944937 · Cited by 32,337
Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology.
Shelley, M., & Krippendorff, K. (1984) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2288384 · Cited by 24,346
Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology
Krippendorff, K. (2019) · doi:10.4135/9781071878781 · Cited by 15,448
Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies
Perry, J. L., & Kingdon, J. W. (1985) · Journal of Policy Analysis and Management · doi:10.2307/3323801 · Cited by 11,238
Agendas, alternatives, and public policies
Kingdon, J. W. (1984) · Cited by 9,299
An algorithm for suffix stripping
Porter, M. F. (1980) · Program · doi:10.1108/eb046814 · Cited by 8,096
Weber, R. (1990) · doi:10.4135/9781412983488 · Cited by 7,750
Agendas and instability in American politics
(1993) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.31-0574 · Cited by 5,943
Congress, The Electoral Connection
Ross, M. J., & Mayhew, D. R. (1975) · The Western Political Quarterly · doi:10.2307/447379 · Cited by 4,094
Congress: The Electoral Connection, by David R. Mayhew
Page, B. I. (1975) · Political Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2148248 · Cited by 3,141
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Baumgartner Frank R., 2002, Policy Dynamics
- Katznelson Ira, 2006, The Macropolitics of Congress, 96
- 10.1017/S0020818303573064 · DOI
- Rohde David, 1985, Studies of Congress, 147
- Stone Philip J., 1966, The General Enquirer: A Computer Approach to Content Analysis
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Text as Data: The Promise and Pitfalls of Automatic Content Analysis Methods for Political Texts
Grimmer, J., & Stewart, B. M. (2013) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mps028 · Cited by 3,297
Structural Topic Models for Open‐Ended Survey Responses
Roberts, M. E., Stewart, B., Tingley, D. H., Lucas, C., Leder-Luis, J., Gadarian, S. K., Albertson, B. L., & Rand, D. G. (2014) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12103 · Cited by 2,103
stm : An R Package for Structural Topic Models
Roberts, M. E., Stewart, B. M., & Tingley, D. (2019) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v091.i02 · Cited by 1,714
Gentzkow, M. A., Kelly, B., & Taddy, M. A. (2019) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.20181020 · Cited by 1,353
DiMaggio, P., Nag, M., & Blei, D. M. (2013) · Poetics · doi:10.1016/j.poetic.2013.08.004 · Cited by 1,233
Metadata
- Authors
- Quinn, K. M., Monroe, B. L., Colaresi, M., Crespin, M. H., & Radev, D. R.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- Pennsylvania State University (US)
- Michigan State University (US)
- University of Georgia (US)
- University of Michigan (US)
- Venue
- American Journal of Political Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-12-28
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 209-228
- ISSN
- 0092-5853 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-5907
- OpenAlex
- W2144874182
- Cited by
- 671
- References
- 70
- Citations by year
- 2026: 21 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 57 · 2022: 55 · 2021: 57 · 2020: 64 · 2019: 60 · 2018: 52 · 2017: 42 · 2016: 36 · 2015: 41 · 2014: 35 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 15
- FWCI
- 72.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- public-domain
- onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
- Locations
- American Journal of Political Science (publishedVersion, public-domain)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (0527513, 0714688)
- Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University
- Center for Advanced Study, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
- Topics
- Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Computational and Text Analysis Methods
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
- Keywords
- political attention, parliamentary speeches, topic modeling, topic hierarchy, United States Senate, congressional records, statistical learning, word choice
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
