Automated Coding of Political Event Data

Author(s):  
Philip A. Schrodt ◽  
David Van Brackle
Author(s):  
Debarun Bhattacharjya ◽  
Tian Gao ◽  
Dharmashankar Subramanian

In multivariate event data, the instantaneous rate of an event's occurrence may be sensitive to the temporal sequence in which other influencing events have occurred in the history. For example, an agent’s actions are typically driven by preceding actions taken by the agent as well as those of other relevant agents in some order. We introduce a novel statistical/causal model for capturing such an order-sensitive historical dependence, where an event’s arrival rate is determined by the order in which its underlying causal events have occurred in the recent past. We propose an algorithm to discover these causal events and learn the most influential orders using time-stamped event occurrence data. We show that the proposed model fits various event datasets involving single as well as multiple agents better than baseline models. We also illustrate potentially useful insights from our proposed model for an analyst during the discovery process through analysis on a real-world political event dataset.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
Logan Stundal ◽  
Benjamin E. Bagozzi ◽  
John R. Freeman ◽  
Jennifer S. Holmes

Abstract Political event data are widely used in studies of political violence. Recent years have seen notable advances in the automated coding of political event data from international news sources. Yet, the validity of machine-coded event data remains disputed, especially in the context of event geolocation. We analyze the frequencies of human- and machine-geocoded event data agreement in relation to an independent (ground truth) source. The events are human rights violations in Colombia. We perform our evaluation for a key, 8-year period of the Colombian conflict and in three 2-year subperiods as well as for a selected set of (non)journalistically remote municipalities. As a complement to this analysis, we estimate spatial probit models based on the three datasets. These models assume Gaussian Markov Random Field error processes; they are constructed using a stochastic partial differential equation and estimated with integrated nested Laplacian approximation. The estimated models tell us whether the three datasets produce comparable predictions, underreport events in relation to the same covariates, and have similar patterns of prediction error. Together the two analyses show that, for this subnational conflict, the machine- and human-geocoded datasets are comparable in terms of external validity but, according to the geostatistical models, produce prediction errors that differ in important respects.


2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy Perkins ◽  
Colin Wood ◽  
Raimundo Dos Santos ◽  
William Meyer ◽  
Noah Garfinkle ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Andrew Halterman ◽  
Jill Irvine ◽  
Manar Landis ◽  
Phanindra Jalla ◽  
Yan Liang ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 45 (6) ◽  
pp. 1049-1064 ◽  
Author(s):  
Javier Osorio ◽  
Viveca Pavon ◽  
Sayeed Salam ◽  
Jennifer Holmes ◽  
Patrick T. Brandt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (36) ◽  
pp. 1322 ◽  
Author(s):  
HyoungAh Kim ◽  
Vito D’Orazio ◽  
Patrick Brandt ◽  
Jared Looper ◽  
Sayeed Salam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document