Media Framing and the Dynamics of Racial Policy Preferences
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Dictionaries are relatively easy and cheap to apply across a variety of problems.
“The general idea of dictionaries make them relatively easy and cheap to apply across a variety of problems”
From Text as Data: The Promise and Pitfalls of Automatic Content Analysis Methods for Political Texts (2013) · cites this paper as Kellstedt 2000
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
Cited by 159
- Authors
- Kellstedt, P. M.
- Corresponding author
- Kellstedt, Paul M.
- ORCID
- Kellstedt, Paul M.
- Venue
- American Journal of Political Science
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 2000-04
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 245
- ISSN
- 0092-5853 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4233961384
- Cited by
- 159
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 64.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Journal of Political Science (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Media Studies and Communication
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Race, History, and American Society
- Keywords
- media framing, racial attitudes, public opinion, racial politics, news media influence
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
