Cited by 160Computational and Text Analysis MethodsElectoral Systems and Political ParticipationMedia Influence and Politics

Measuring Group Differences in High-Dimensional Choices: Method and Application to Congressional Speech

Open access
Gentzkow, Matthew, Shapiro, Jesse, Taddy, Matt·2016·National Bureau of Economic Research

Abstract

We study the problem of measuring group differences in choices when the dimensionality of the choice set is large.We show that standard approaches suffer from a severe finite-sample bias, and we propose an estimator that applies recent advances in machine learning to address this bias.We apply this method to measure trends in the partisanship of congressional speech from 1873 to 2016, defining partisanship to be the ease with which an observer could infer a congressperson's party from a single utterance.Our estimates imply that partisanship is far greater in recent years than in the past, and that it increased sharply in the early 1990s after remaining low and relatively constant over the preceding century.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3386/w22423

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 76 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gentzkow, M., Shapiro, J., & Taddy, M.
Affiliations
National Bureau of Economic Research (US)
Venue
National Bureau of Economic Research
Published
2016-07
OpenAlex
W2885916966
Cited by
159
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1
Type
report
Language
en
Open access
Licence
public-domain
Locations
National Bureau of Economic Research (publishedVersion, public-domain)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Brown University
  • University of Chicago
  • Booth School of Business, University of Chicago
  • Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research
  • Stanford Research Computing Center, Stanford University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Computational and Text Analysis Methods
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
Keywords
finite-sample bias, machine learning estimators, congressional speeches, partisanship, party identification, political speeches

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